6/1 - NY Times Takes Iraqi PM Out of Context ('Daily attacks on Iraqis' comment)

NewsBusters.org ^ | 6/2/2006 | Clay Waters

[FreedomNeocon]

NY Times Takes Iraqi PM Out of Context: Plus, the Word No Other Media Outlet Heard Posted by Clay Waters on June 2, 2006 - 12:02.

The full headline deck to Friday's lead story from Baghdad by Richard Oppel Jr. is certainly provocative:

"Iraqi Accuses U.S. Of 'Daily' Attacks Against Civilians -- Premier Assails Troops -- New Government Vows Its Own Inquiry in Deaths of 24 in Haditha."

Oppel begins:

"Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki lashed out at the American military on Thursday, denouncing what he characterized as habitual attacks by troops against Iraqi civilians.

"As outrage over reports that American marines killed 24 Iraqis in the town of Haditha last year continued to shake the new government, the country's senior leaders said that they would demand that American officials turn over their investigative files on the killings and that the Iraqi government would conduct its own inquiry.

"In his comments, Mr. Maliki said violence against civilians had become a 'daily phenomenon' by many troops in the American-led coalition who 'do not respect the Iraqi people.'"

"'They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion,' he said. 'This is completely unacceptable.' Attacks on civilians will play a role in future decisions on how long to ask American forces to remain in Iraq, the prime minister added."

But Eric Umansky, who writes the "Today’s Papers" column for Slate, points out:

"What the paper doesn't include is another part of the prime minister's quote, where he says, carefully, 'Yes a mistake may happen but there is an acceptable limit to mistakes....I am not saying that they are intentional. But it is worrying for us.' That's a useful bit of context, no? (For what it's worth, TP did a quick Nexis search and couldn't find another publication that quotes Maliki's charging "daily" attacks against civilians.)"

The wording of the quotes that appear in both papers are slightly different in other respects, but the Washington Post has Maliki calling it only a "phenomenon," not a "daily phenomenon," a word which made the Times' headline.

The Post also plays the story on A16, not as the day's top story as the Times does, another clue that the New York Times may be overplaying things. (The Associated Press also only heard the word "phenemenon").

For more examples of New York Times bias, visit TimesWatch.

[FreedomNeocon]

I tried to caution the usual 'angry FReepers' to note the source yesterday. Didn't stop 93 of them from flipping out, calling for us to withdraw Iraq, screw them, let it all go to hell, blah blah blah.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1642198/posts

Well here you go...

[neodad]

Fake, but accurate again.

[Shelayne]

Thanks for posting that. I suspected as much.

[Dems_R_Losers]

The Philadelphia Inquirer used similar language today in its front-page, above-the-fold story.

[lonestar67]

Keep fighting the good fight.

Your posts are excellent.

[6SJ7]

I have to keep reminding myself what side the NYTimes is on; and it ain't our side. The NYTimes --- home of Jason Blair.

[Bahbah]

I tried to caution the usual 'angry FReepers'

You would think they would have learned by now. A short time ago, an Iraqi in the government was quoted as saying there was no problem with Iran having nukes. It was not even close to what he said, as Iraq the Model pointed out very quickly. Can you imagine what the situation would be like if we did not have the internet. We would all be on the way to the White House to lynch the President and calling for a complete withdrawal from Iraq because of their ingratitude.

[OldFriend]

Thanks for your diligence.

I have long since stopped allowing anything printed in the media to influence my opinion.

[pissant]

Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is suspect coming from the MSM. EVERYTHING.

[Shelayne]

Boy the MSM are certainly crafty, aren't they?

1. They are bludgeoning the military (and the chain of command) over unproven and very suspicious allegations; thereby hoping the mushy middle and the dimwitted left will fall for this new My Lai, hook line and sinker. And believe me, there are going to be MANY more "atrocities" suddenly seeing the light of day. They need to beat this horse until there is nothing left but the screaming.

2. They are pilloring the military, knowing that the leadership--especially the Commander In Chief--cannot say anything in defense of the Marines, knowing full well that would be a breach in Military law (Undue Influence); thereby hoping that the general public will think that the allegations are true or get so angry at the leadership, they remove their support.

3. They are purposefully taking comments out of context, to inflame even those who have SUPPORTED the war and the President, hoping they will start to say "Screw 'em! Let them kill each other. Let's get out of there-- NOW!"; thereby eroding what is left of the support for the War on Terror.

I have seen the range of the above already right here on FR. And this is just the beginning.

We apparently are such easy prey. :^(

[FreedomNeocon]

Don't forget that FR has attraced much attention in the past 3 years or so, not all of it conservative or republican.

I kid you not... I would not be in the least surprised if people like Chrissy Matthews had a FR nick ;)

[pabianice]

, now turning tricks for a rock of crack...