Posted on 03/18/2006 10:34:17 AM PST by 68skylark
On March 11, the New York Times printed the gripping story of Ali Shalal Qaissi, the Iraqi in the most famous photo from Abu Ghraib, depicted below:
The story begins:
Almost two years later, Ali Shalal Qaissi's wounds are still raw.
There is the mangled hand, an old injury that became infected by the shackles chafing his skin. There is the slight limp, made worse by days tied in uncomfortable positions. And most of all, there are the nightmares of his nearly six-month ordeal at Abu Ghraib prison in 2003 and 2004.
The story continues in lurid detail, a searing indictment of the sadistic cruelty of the American armed forces. And Qaissi is described, sympathetically, as a man on a mission: he forgives his American torturers, but wants to prevent similar "atrocities" from occurring in the future. The Times article is titled "Symbol of Abu Ghraib Seeks to Spare Others His Nightmare." Indeed, Qaissi has made something of a career out of being the man in the famous photo, including, rather weirdly, distributing this business card:
It was indeed a gripping story. And, needless to say, one that suited the Times' political agenda. Just one problem, though: it wasn't true. Qaissi is a hoax. This morning's Times includes the following correction:
A front-page article last Saturday profiled Ali Shalal Qaissi, identifying him as the hooded man forced to stand on a box, attached to wires, in a photograph from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal of 2003 and 2004. He was shown holding such a photograph. As an article on Page A1 today makes clear, Mr. Qaissi was not that man.
The Times did not adequately research Mr. Qaissi's insistence that he was the man in the photograph. Mr. Qaissi's account had already been broadcast and printed by other outlets, including PBS and Vanity Fair, without challenge. Lawyers for former prisoners at Abu Ghraib vouched for him. Human rights workers seemed to support his account. The Pentagon, asked for verification, declined to confirm or deny it.
Despite the previous reports, The Times should have been more persistent in seeking comment from the military. A more thorough examination of previous articles in The Times and other newspapers would have shown that in 2004 military investigators named another man as the one on the box, raising suspicions about Mr. Qaissi's claim.
The Times also overstated the conviction with which representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International expressed their view of whether Mr. Qaissi was the man in the photograph. While they said he could well be that man, they did not say they believed he was.
As the old newsman's adage goes, some stories are just too good to check. Besides, there was someone in the photograph. So I suppose the Times could say its story was fake, but accurate.
To the Public Editor:
Re: "Symbol of Abu Ghraib Seeks to Spare Others His Nightmare" by By HASSAN M. FATTAH, March 11, 2006
I’m glad the NY Times keeps mentioning the Abu Ghraib prison scandal so often, especially on the front page. The U.S. military is evil, evil, evil – your readers must never be allowed to forget it.
And don’t let anyone give you a hard time about this, or whine about “balance” or “perspective” or any of that nonsense. Don’t heed the calls to mention Saddam’s crimes at Abu Ghraib. Just keep hammering away at the U.S. military – that’s what your readers need to hear.
Sincerely,...
Why even bother?
Al Jezeera's print partner.
All lies,all the time.
Yep, the army says the being tortured was not Claw man but rather Gilligan.
"The Pentagon, asked for verification, declined to confirm or deny it."
They are literally using, as an excuse, that the Pentagon wouldn't do the Times' homework for them.
I really laughed out loud when I read that. Why the hell should the Pentagon help the New York Times with yet another propaganda hit piece?
What it indirectly admits, however, is that maybe the Pentagon is a more reliable source on these matters than the clouds of leftist anti-Americans who are their only other vague sources.
Or that pathetic gesture that it's not their fault, because Vanity Fair printed it first. Good grief. Vanity Fair scooped the New York Times, and Pinch Sulzberger followed right along in their wake. We all know what John Bunyan had to say about Vanity Fair.
The NY Times Retractor - The Newspaper of Record and Retraction
I'm curious what page this correction was printed on.
Yeah, as much as I generally distrust the government, I find myself putting more trust in Pentagon news releases than in MSM reports.
For example, the reports of Operation Swarmer are being badly interpreted by the media, such as Time Magazine -- see here.
How would the press have portrayed Swarmer if instead of the "cordon and search" operation it was planned to be, it turned out to be pitched battle? A severe defeat. And how does the press account for the absence of American casualties and the feeble performance of the fabled and invincible Resistance in Samarra itself, where in years past dozens of Americans had died in combat and into which Iraqi government forces dared not go? A "fizzle".
If you just read news releases, and skip the MSM "analysis," you get a better picture of what's happening.
Read this carefully. This is made to sound as if the Americans caused his mangled hand and limp. No, he got an infection (no details) from the shackles and was made uncomfortable by being tied up.
Makes me wonder what he did to get that kind of attention. They didn't shackle and hog-tie every prisoner.
Someone needs to publish a book called "Best of the NY Times Corrections: 2001-2006." It would be hilariously good reading if it weren't so pathetic.
Absolutely. The Times and the rest of the MSM are notorious for cherry-picking a few facts to support their agenda, and leaving out anything that calls their narrative into question.
It figures they would ask this organization for comfirmation of human right abuses; Amnesty International the group who defended The Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot when reports were coming out that they were murdering millions.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when at first we try to deceive."
Hahahahahahahahahaahahahaahahah!!!!
It's getting to the point where even leftists are going to have a hard time believeing the NYT.
Who could lift it?
Terrorists stick it out, more soldiers died.
The NY Times and Democrats have been what has kept Zarqawi's ragtag bunch of mutants in the field, and thereby have been a direct cause of about 1500 of our soldiers' deaths. With a united country, they would have given up long ago.
I'm not sure I'd go that far. But I agree with you that the Times and the rest of the MSM has been cheerleading for the bad guys.
NYTimes bias on Iraq is not news.
That they fell for an utter hoax is a symbol of where their bias lies. Alas, even that is not new. If you recall, Boston Globe fell for a hoax of porno pics that some islamic website was saying was prisoner abuses. Then there was the GI Joe that AP told us was a captive American soldier in Iraq.
Pathetic Lamestream Media at work.
Question: DID THEY PUT THE RETRACTION ON THE FRONT PAGE?
IF NOT, WHY NOT?
An excellent idea! But it would be even better if it included all of the main MSM outlets. A chapter for each one. You could make some big money with this one.
I'd buy that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.