Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Washington Post vs Times Korea Nuke Story-BIAS?
Washington Post And Washington Times ^ | October 16, 2002 | Post and TimesComparison

Posted on 10/17/2002 7:15:04 AM PDT by icwhatudo

"We lie not by telling you things that aren't true, we lie by not telling you things"

North Korea violates an agreement signed with the Clinton administration. It is covered by both the Washington Post and Washington Times. Unfortunately, by reading only the Post, you would not have any idea our side of the bargain was to help build them two nuclear power plants. Lets compare stories...

From The Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37017-2002Oct16.html

WASHINGTON –– North Korea has told the United States it has a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of an agreement signed with the Clinton administration, a senior administration official said Wednesday night.

North Korea also told U.S. diplomats it no longer beholden to the anti-nuclear agreement, said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Under a 1994 agreement with the United States, North Korea promised to give up its nuclear weapons program, and it promised to allow inspections to verify that it did not have the material needed to construct such weapons.

--------------------------

an agreement signed
the anti-nuclear agreement
North Korea promised
NO MENTION OFWHAT WE PROMISED-WHY?

-----------------------------------------

From the Times:

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021017-1360048.htm

The North Koreans are in "material breach" of the 8-year-old Agreed Framework, White House spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters, referring to the cornerstone accord under which Pyongyang promised to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for U.S. help in building two nuclear power plants.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bias; korea; media; mediabias; nuke
Just another example.
1 posted on 10/17/2002 7:15:05 AM PDT by icwhatudo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
Good catch!
2 posted on 10/17/2002 7:19:05 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
I remember my first modern "social studies" teacher. On the first day of class, he asked "How long is a treaty good for?" We guessed all kinds of things - the answer - "until someone breaks it." - which amazed us.

He also made us memorize the entire cabinet and all the leading members of the house and senate. He was super liberal (it was the 70's) but it was my first foray into understanding politics.

3 posted on 10/17/2002 7:24:34 AM PDT by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
I CAN'T VOTE.

PLEASE, HELP TAKE BACK THE SENATE.
IT'S FOR THE PUPPIES!

TakeBackCongress.org

A resource for conservatives who want a Republican majority in the Senate

4 posted on 10/17/2002 7:28:52 AM PDT by ffrancone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I still care
He also made us memorize the entire cabinet and all the leading members of the house and senate. He was super liberal (it was the 70's) but it was my first foray into understanding politics.

There is nothing wrong with being a "super liberal" as a teacher as long as you teach. Sounds like this guy passed the test. It's the same reason I read the NYT and Washington Post, to learn. The NYT is definately biased, but their news stories are full of facts, which is why, despite Howell Raines, it is a great newspaper.
5 posted on 10/17/2002 7:34:11 AM PDT by BillCompton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
I had a similar adventure with bias listening to NPR this morning (yeah, I know, embarrassing to admit I was listening to NPR, don't hit me.) They had a piece on North Korea and their nuclear program, saying that North Korea "announced they would no longer be bound by the agreement not to develop nuclear weapons", and making it sound like it was the result of W and his "axis of evil" designation - yet another failure of American Cowboy foreign policy. They didn't mention that the country had been cheating on the agreement since day one, and that this only came out because the Bush administration accused them of cheating, and provided evidence. They didn't mention that the whole agreement was a sham to start with, the result of Clinton trying to sweep the problem of their nuclear program under the rug with feckless photo op policy. Rather than pointing out that this was another episode of foreign policy failure stemming from Clinton's "feel good but don't really address the problem" approach, they made it look like a failure of Bush. This was some of the most biased journalism I have heard in a long while.
6 posted on 10/17/2002 8:08:03 AM PDT by Texas dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillCompton
The NYT may have some facts and thereby may be a usefull and/or informative paper. But by constantly, and shamelessly shilling for the DNC, it's certainly not a great paper. It's little more than a DNC newsletter.
7 posted on 10/17/2002 9:36:43 AM PDT by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wny
Well, you have to separate the editorial page from the news pages. The NYT has _always_ been a liberal rag. Howell Raines took over the news division about a year ago and started advocating liberal positions in their news stories. That has greatly deminished their newspaper. But I can't agree that it is "little more than a DNC newsletter". I just went to their website and grabed the top story. I will highlight some of the facts in it. Most NYT stories are like this. They may be slanted, but they are most always highly informative. The "greatness" of the paper is in the quality of the reporting. They do it much better than other papers.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 — Confronted by new American intelligence, North Korea has admitted that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear-weapons development program for the past several years, the Bush administration said tonight. Officials added that North Korea had also informed them that it has now "nullified" its 1994 agreement with the United States to freeze all nuclear weapons development activity.

North Korea's surprise revelation, which confronts the Bush administration with a nuclear crisis in Asia even as it threatens war with Iraq, came 12 days ago in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital. A senior American diplomat, James A. Kelley, confronted his North Korean counterparts with American intelligence data suggesting a secret project was under way. At first, the North Korean officials angrily denied the allegation, according to an American official who was present.

The next day the North Koreans acknowledged the nuclear program and according to one American official said they, "have more powerful things as well." American officials have interpreted that comment as an acknowledgment that North Korea possesses other weapons of mass destruction. Administration officials refused to say tonight whether the North Koreans had acknowledged successfully producing a nuclear weapon from the project, which uses highly enriched uranium. Nor would administration officials who briefed reporters say whether they think North Korea has produced such a weapon.

"We're not certain that it's been weaponized yet," said another official, noting that North Korea has conducted no nuclear testing, which the United States could easily detect.

The idea of a North Korean nuclear arsenal immediately alters the delicate nuclear balance in Asia and confronts the Bush administration with two simultaneous crises involving nations developing weapons of mass destruction: one in Iraq, the other on the Korean Peninsula.

"We seek a peaceful resolution to this situation," a senior administration official said tonight, briefing reporters as news of the North Korean program began to leak. "No peaceful nation wants to see a nuclear-armed North Korea."

Yet the administration's demands on North Korea tonight were muted. "The United States is calling on North Korea to comply with all of its commitments under the Nonproliferation Treaty and to eliminate its nuclear weapons program in a verifiable manner," an American official said. There was no discussion of the consequences if that appeal was ignored, even though the announcement came only hours after President Bush issued some of his toughest and most ominous-sounding warnings yet to Iraq.

Mr. Bush said nothing about North Korea today. Instead, the State Department dealt with the issue tonight through a statement issued by Richard A. Boucher, the state department spokesman, and through briefings by midlevel officials. Mr. Boucher said Mr. Kelly and Under Secretary of State John R. Bolton had been dispatched "to confer with friends and allies about this important issue." He also said, "This is an opportunity for peace-loving nations in the region to deal, effectively, with this challenge."

At a meeting on Tuesday of the National Security Council, Mr. Bush and his aides decided to handle the North Korean declarations through diplomatic channels, a senior official said. Japan and South Korea, which is now in the midst of a presidential election campaign, both wanted to avoid confrontation, according to several officials. But American officials said that there was no early indication that North Korea would admit inspectors or give up its program. One senior official characterized the North Korean attitude at the Pyongyang meeting as belligerent, rather than apologetic, even while it admitted violating the 1994 accord to freeze its nuclear weapons development.

The strongest action the administration announced tonight was the cessation of talks that could lead to economic cooperation. "The United States was prepared to offer economic and political steps to improve the lives of the North Korean people," Mr. Boucher's statement said, "provided the North were dramatically to alter its behavior across a range of issues," including its weapons programs, its past support for terrorism, and "the deplorable treatment of the North Korean people."

But in deciding on a very measured response, the White House was also implicitly recognizing the reality of how North Korea differs from Iraq. It may already have nuclear weapons, and it has a huge army and conventional weapons capable of wreaking havoc on South Korea.

Moreover, even the prospect of military action against North Korea, conducted at the same time the administration is considering an attack on Iraq, would mean that the Pentagon would be confronted by the prospect of fighting a two-front war.

Deeply impoverished, with its military might waning, North Korea has long sought nuclear capability. It pursued an aggressive nuclear weapons program in the 1980's and 1990's that resulted in a major confrontation with the Clinton administration in 1994. Officials who served at the time said they believed that the dispute nearly veered into war. At one point in 1994, President Bill Clinton ordered Stealth bombers and other forces into South Korea to deter a pre-emptive North Korean strike.

But a deal was struck, partly with the intervention of former President Jimmy Carter. The result was a 1994 agreement under which North Korea committed to halting its nuclear work, and the United States, Japan and South Korea, among others, agreed to provide the country with fuel oil and proliferation-resistant nuclear reactors to produce electric power.

While ground has been broken on the project, the reactors have yet to be delivered, and now that agreement appears dead, officials said tonight.

Around the time that the Clinton administration negotiated the 1994 accord, the Central Intelligence Agency estimated that North Korea's nuclear weapons facilities at Yongbyon, a program that was based on reprocessing nuclear waste into plutonium, had already produced enough material to manufacture one or two weapons.

If the North Korean assertions are true — and administration officials assume they are — the government of Kim Jong Il began in the mid- or late-1990's a secret, parallel program to produce weapons-grade material from highly enriched uranium. That does not require nuclear reactors, but it is a slow process that the United States may have discovered through Korean efforts to acquire centrifuges. That is also the process that the administration believes the Iraqis are undertaking.

"We have to assume that they now have the capacity to build many more weapons, and they may have already," said a senior official who has seen the intelligence.

It was unclear today why North Korea admitted to the weapons program. Only last month, Kim Jong Il admitted that North Korean agents had kidnapped Japanese decades earlier, and he apologized. Five of those kidnapped people returned to Japan for visits this week.

But one official who was in the room on Oct. 4 when the North Korean deputy foreign minister, Kang Sok Joo, described the existence of the nuclear program, said, "I would not describe them as apologetic."

The administration's decision to keep news of the North Korean admission secret for the past 12 days while it fashioned a response appears significant for several reasons. Mr. Bush and his aides have clearly decided to avoid describing the situation as a crisis that requires a military response at a time when dealing with Iraq is the No. 1 priority.

"Imagine if Saddam had done this, that he had admitted — or bluffed — that he has the bomb or is about to have one," one senior official said. "But there's been a decision made that the system can take only so much at one time." The response also has much to do with the vulnerability of America's allies. Every American administration that has considered military action against North Korea has come to the same conclusion: it is virtually impossible without risking a second Korean war and the destruction of Seoul in South Korea. North Korea maintains a vast arsenal of conventional weapons and hundreds of thousands of troops.

But dealing with the problem diplomatically will be a tremendous challenge, at a time when the administration is already at odds with many of its closest allies over how to deal with Saddam Hussein.

American officials used the past dozen days to formulate a common response. At a news conference in South Korea on Thursday morning, local time, Lee Tae Sik, deputy minister for foreign affairs, urged North Korea to abide by a series of agreements it now clearly violates: the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the 1994 agreement, and a "joint declaration" signed with South Korea to keep the Korean Peninsula nuclear-free.

"All the issues including the North's nuclear program should be resolved through peaceful methods and by dialogue," Mr. Lee said.

Tonight, senior administration officials said that inside the White House, theories have sprouted about what North Korea hoped to gain from its declaration.

According to one theory, discussed widely in the Pentagon and the State Department, North Korea's leaders want to demonstrate that they cannot be bullied by the United States. "Here they are declaring they have the stuff to make a nuke," one official said. "Whether they have one, or they are bluffing, we don't know for sure. But the message is, `Don't mess with us.' "

Another theory holds that North Korea is seeking attention, as it has done many times before, hoping to trade its nuclear capability for economic aid. That worked in 1994, according to this theory. But it could backfire now, in a post-Sept. 11 environment
8 posted on 10/17/2002 10:52:17 AM PDT by BillCompton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson