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
As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you
maintain a polite tone. Please send a copy of your correspondence to
fair@fair.org .
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
As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you
maintain a polite tone. Please send a copy of your correspondence to
fair@fair.org .
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
