KeJia Sista
Dec 3rd, 2004, 07:33 PM
http://www.fair.org/activism/nyt-fallujah.html
>
>
> ACTION ALERT:
> New York Times Rewrites Fallujah History
>
> November 16, 2004
>
> In three recent reports about the military invasion of the Iraqi city of
> Fallujah, the New York Times has misreported the facts about the April
> 2004 invasion of the city and the toll it took on Iraqi civilians.
>
> On November 8, the Times reported: "In April, American troops were closing
> in on the city center when popular uprisings broke out in cities across
> Iraq. The outrage, fed by mostly unconfirmed reports of large civilian
> casualties, forced the Americans to withdraw. American commanders regarded
> the reports as inflated, but it was impossible to determine independently
> how many civilians had been killed."
>
> The next day, the Times made the same point, reporting that the U.S. "had
> to withdraw during a previous fight for the city in April after
> unconfirmed reports of heavy civilian casualties sparked outrage among
> both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis." And on November 15, the Times noted that
> the current operation "redressed a disastrous assault on Fallujah last
> April that was called off when unconfirmed reports of large civilian
> casualties drove the political cost too high."
>
> It's unclear why the Times considers those civilian deaths "unconfirmed."
> While there is some debate over precise figures, this wording leaves the
> impression that nothing can be reasonably known about deaths in Fallujah.
>
> The head of Fallujah's hospital, Dr. Rafie al-Issawi, has consistently
> maintained that more than 600 people were killed in the initial U.S. siege
> of Fallujah in April 2004, a figure that rose to more than 800 as the
> siege was lifted and people pinned down by the fighting were able to
> register their families' deaths (Knight-Ridder, 5/9/04). More than 300 of
> the dead, according to al-Issawi, were women and children. The Iraqi
> Health Ministry in Baghdad, part of the U.S.-installed government, gave a
> lower figure of about 271 killed, with 52 of the dead being women and
> children. On October 26, the independent British-based group Iraq Body
> Count reported that the civilian death toll in Fallujah in April was about
> 600, based on their extensive evaluation of the numbers reported by local
> hospital officials and the Health Ministry, as well as mainstream media
> accounts.
>
> Other journalistic investigations depict the reality of widespread
> civilian death in Fallujah: An Associated Press tally of the dead in Iraq
> (4/30/04) discovered that in Fallujah "two football fields were turned
> into cemeteries, with hundreds of freshly dug graves, marked with wooden
> planks scrawled with names -- some with names of women, some marked
> specifically as children. At one of the fields, an AP reporter was told by
> volunteer gravediggers on April 11 that more than 300 people had been
> buried there." A Reuters report (4/13/04) quoted researchers from Human
> Rights Watch calling for an investigation based on reports they received
> from residents fleeing the violence in Fallujah.
>
> Even the lower estimates provided by the Health Ministry debunk the Times'
> repeated assertion that reports of "large civilian casualties" are
> "unconfirmed"-- unless the paper wants to maintain that 52 women and
> children killed in an attempt to "liberate" their city are
> inconsequential. But the Times should know from its own reporting that
> the higher casualty figures are much more realistic.
>
> On October 19, the Times reported: "There are no agreed figures for
> civilian deaths in Iraq over all since the war began in early 2003, but
> the best estimates, by private groups and independent news organizations,
> place the figure in the 10,000 to 15,000 range." It would seem obvious,
> then, that the bombing of a large civilian population in Iraq in what the
> Times called "the most intense aerial bombardment in Iraq since major
> combat ended" (4/30/04) would produce significant civilian casualties.
>
> Since substantial numbers of civilians did in fact die in Fallujah in
> April, even if the exact number cannot be pinned down, readers might
> wonder if the Times' policy is that things that cannot be confirmed with
> numerical precision are essentially "unconfirmed." But this would be a
> double standard on the part of the Times; in its November 8 report, the
> paper noted: "The number of insurgents in the city is estimated at 3,000,
> although some guerrillas, terrorist fighters and their leaders escaped the
> city before the attack. American military officials estimated that of a
> usual population of 300,000, 70 percent to 90 percent of civilians had
> fled."
>
> Surely there is no way to determine exactly how many insurgents are in
> Fallujah, or how many civilians have fled. To be consistent, shouldn't
> the Times be reporting that accounts of civilians leaving the city are
> "unconfirmed"?
>
> In its November 8 report, the Times matter-of-factly noted that U.S forces
> targeted a Fallujah hospital early in the campaign "because the American
> military believed that it was the source of rumors about heavy
> casualties." The Times added: "This time around, the American military
> intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what
> has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons."
>
> If part of that "information war" means convincing Americans that
> civilians are not victims of the Fallujah invasion, the Times has signed
> up on the side of the Pentagon.
>
>
> ACTION: Please contact New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent and ask
> him to investigate why the Times treats credible reports of hundreds of
> civilian casualties in Fallujah as "unconfirmed."
>
>
> CONTACT:
> New York Times
> Daniel Okrent, Public Editor
> mailto:public@nytimes.com
> Phone: (212) 556-7652
KeJia Sista
>
>
> ACTION ALERT:
> New York Times Rewrites Fallujah History
>
> November 16, 2004
>
> In three recent reports about the military invasion of the Iraqi city of
> Fallujah, the New York Times has misreported the facts about the April
> 2004 invasion of the city and the toll it took on Iraqi civilians.
>
> On November 8, the Times reported: "In April, American troops were closing
> in on the city center when popular uprisings broke out in cities across
> Iraq. The outrage, fed by mostly unconfirmed reports of large civilian
> casualties, forced the Americans to withdraw. American commanders regarded
> the reports as inflated, but it was impossible to determine independently
> how many civilians had been killed."
>
> The next day, the Times made the same point, reporting that the U.S. "had
> to withdraw during a previous fight for the city in April after
> unconfirmed reports of heavy civilian casualties sparked outrage among
> both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis." And on November 15, the Times noted that
> the current operation "redressed a disastrous assault on Fallujah last
> April that was called off when unconfirmed reports of large civilian
> casualties drove the political cost too high."
>
> It's unclear why the Times considers those civilian deaths "unconfirmed."
> While there is some debate over precise figures, this wording leaves the
> impression that nothing can be reasonably known about deaths in Fallujah.
>
> The head of Fallujah's hospital, Dr. Rafie al-Issawi, has consistently
> maintained that more than 600 people were killed in the initial U.S. siege
> of Fallujah in April 2004, a figure that rose to more than 800 as the
> siege was lifted and people pinned down by the fighting were able to
> register their families' deaths (Knight-Ridder, 5/9/04). More than 300 of
> the dead, according to al-Issawi, were women and children. The Iraqi
> Health Ministry in Baghdad, part of the U.S.-installed government, gave a
> lower figure of about 271 killed, with 52 of the dead being women and
> children. On October 26, the independent British-based group Iraq Body
> Count reported that the civilian death toll in Fallujah in April was about
> 600, based on their extensive evaluation of the numbers reported by local
> hospital officials and the Health Ministry, as well as mainstream media
> accounts.
>
> Other journalistic investigations depict the reality of widespread
> civilian death in Fallujah: An Associated Press tally of the dead in Iraq
> (4/30/04) discovered that in Fallujah "two football fields were turned
> into cemeteries, with hundreds of freshly dug graves, marked with wooden
> planks scrawled with names -- some with names of women, some marked
> specifically as children. At one of the fields, an AP reporter was told by
> volunteer gravediggers on April 11 that more than 300 people had been
> buried there." A Reuters report (4/13/04) quoted researchers from Human
> Rights Watch calling for an investigation based on reports they received
> from residents fleeing the violence in Fallujah.
>
> Even the lower estimates provided by the Health Ministry debunk the Times'
> repeated assertion that reports of "large civilian casualties" are
> "unconfirmed"-- unless the paper wants to maintain that 52 women and
> children killed in an attempt to "liberate" their city are
> inconsequential. But the Times should know from its own reporting that
> the higher casualty figures are much more realistic.
>
> On October 19, the Times reported: "There are no agreed figures for
> civilian deaths in Iraq over all since the war began in early 2003, but
> the best estimates, by private groups and independent news organizations,
> place the figure in the 10,000 to 15,000 range." It would seem obvious,
> then, that the bombing of a large civilian population in Iraq in what the
> Times called "the most intense aerial bombardment in Iraq since major
> combat ended" (4/30/04) would produce significant civilian casualties.
>
> Since substantial numbers of civilians did in fact die in Fallujah in
> April, even if the exact number cannot be pinned down, readers might
> wonder if the Times' policy is that things that cannot be confirmed with
> numerical precision are essentially "unconfirmed." But this would be a
> double standard on the part of the Times; in its November 8 report, the
> paper noted: "The number of insurgents in the city is estimated at 3,000,
> although some guerrillas, terrorist fighters and their leaders escaped the
> city before the attack. American military officials estimated that of a
> usual population of 300,000, 70 percent to 90 percent of civilians had
> fled."
>
> Surely there is no way to determine exactly how many insurgents are in
> Fallujah, or how many civilians have fled. To be consistent, shouldn't
> the Times be reporting that accounts of civilians leaving the city are
> "unconfirmed"?
>
> In its November 8 report, the Times matter-of-factly noted that U.S forces
> targeted a Fallujah hospital early in the campaign "because the American
> military believed that it was the source of rumors about heavy
> casualties." The Times added: "This time around, the American military
> intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what
> has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons."
>
> If part of that "information war" means convincing Americans that
> civilians are not victims of the Fallujah invasion, the Times has signed
> up on the side of the Pentagon.
>
>
> ACTION: Please contact New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent and ask
> him to investigate why the Times treats credible reports of hundreds of
> civilian casualties in Fallujah as "unconfirmed."
>
>
> CONTACT:
> New York Times
> Daniel Okrent, Public Editor
> mailto:public@nytimes.com
> Phone: (212) 556-7652
KeJia Sista