Skip to content or view screen version

Is the New York Times misleading its readers again - This time on Iran?

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett | 13.05.2010 17:52 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Other Press | World

Recently, we critiqued a Washington Post article that relied almost entirely on unnamed U.S. officials and a known terrorist organization to make the Iraq-redux argument that Iranian “defectors” are providing the U.S. government with critical information about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Yesterday, The New York Times ran an article—by Nazila Fathi, ostensibly reporting on the execution of five prisoners in Iran on Sunday—that epitomizes the same kind of agenda-driven, threat-hyping approach as the Post’s piece on Iran’s nuclear program.



Recently, we critiqued a Washington Post article that relied almost entirely on unnamed U.S. officials and a known terrorist organization to make the Iraq-redux argument [1] that Iranian “defectors” are providing the U.S. government with critical information about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Yesterday, The New York Times ran an article—by Nazila Fathi, ostensibly reporting on the execution of five prisoners in Iran on Sunday [2] —that epitomizes the same kind of agenda-driven, threat-hyping approach as the Post’s piece on Iran’s nuclear program.

In her reporting since the Islamic Republic’s June 12, 2009 presidential election, Ms. Fathi has demonstrated a clearly “pro-Green” perspective which has, at times, weakened the professional quality of her work. We have addressed at least one example of this in previous posts. [3] But yesterday’s article was an especially egregious example of political advocacy passing as journalism.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, we should state up front some of our own personal views that might be relevant to our commentary on Ms. Fathi’s story. As Americans, we oppose the application of the death penalty in the United States. We are very skeptical about application of the death penalty in other countries, but ultimately leave it to the people of those countries to sort out what kind of criminal justice system they want to have. (Interestingly, outside the United States, the death penalty is imposed not only by governments routinely described by Western human rights organizations as “authoritarian”, like those in China and Saudi Arabia. India, the world’s largest democracy, imposes the death penalty for some crimes. Likewise, Japan imposes the death penalty for homicide and treason.)

Furthermore, we are not out to defend the execution of the five individuals described in Ms. Fathi’s story, or any other execution that has taken place in Iran. However, we believe that we can recognize misleading reporting driven by an inflammatory agenda when we see it; unfortunately, Ms. Fathi’s story fits that bill.

Let’s start with the article’s title—“Iran Executes Five Activists, Sending Message to Critics”—and its first paragraph:

“The Iranian government hanged five Kurdish activists, including a woman, on Sunday morning in the Evin prison in Tehran in what appeared to be an effort to intimidate protesters from marking the anniversary of last year’s huge anti-government rallies after the June 12 election.”

What is the basis for Ms. Fathi’s judgment that the executions “appeared to be an effort to intimidate protesters from marking the anniversary” of the June 12, 2009 election and to “send critics a message”? Ms. Fathi cites the unsubstantiated opinion of the New York-based director of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran to support her point, but does not cite Iran-based sources or any other evidence of Iranian public perceptions (not even opposition web sites). The New York-based human rights activist opines that “this could lay the ground for the execution of post-election protesters”. But, Ms. Fathi herself reports that the five people executed on Sunday were sentenced in 2008—well before the June 12, 2009 presidential election.

We recognize that Fathi may not be responsible for the headline, describing the executed individuals as “activists”. But, in the body of her story, she dismisses official justifications for the executions:

“Although the authorities announced that the five people executed Sunday had been found guilty of carrying out fatal bomb attacks, the executions were widely seen as intended to discourage people from rallying against the government on June 12.”
In keeping with the preceding discussion, we could ask, “widely seen” by whom, exactly? But the more important point here is that Ms. Fathi offers no basis for dismissing official claims that the five individuals executed Sunday had been convicted of carrying out fatal bomb attacks. She notes later on that Iranian prosecutors said all five had been convicted of “involvement in terrorism activities, bombings in government buildings and different parts of the country”. Three of the five were also “convicted of membership in an armed Kurdish rebel group, PJAK”. Ms. Fathi then notes that all five denied the charges of which they were convicted “in public letters posted on Web sites”. (She links to the website of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran to document this claim, but the link takes a reader to a page briefly describing such a letter from only one of the five prisoners.)

What Ms. Fathi fails to tell her readers—and which is surely relevant to evaluating the plausibility of official Iranian claims that the five executed prisoners had been involved in “terrorism activities” and “fatal bomb attacks”—is that the Obama Administration designated PJAK as a foreign terrorist organization in February 2009. Why would Ms. Fathi have omitted this material fact from her story? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, for Ms. Fathi, PJAK’s status as a U.S.-designated terrorist organization was an inconvenient fact, which might have gotten in the way of using the story of the executions to demonize the Iranian government even further in American eyes. Just as President Ahmadinejad’s re-election last year could not possibly have reflected the actual preferences of the Iranian electorate, anyone convicted of terrorist crimes in Iran must surely be the victim of government efforts to suppress popular aspirations for greater freedom. From this perspective, it does not fit with the preferred narrative if individuals convicted of terrorist crimes in Iran are members of a group that the U.S. government has designated as a terrorist organization.

Likewise, Ms. Fathi seems to have been intent on using the story of Sunday’s executions to “keep hope alive” for a revival of the moribund Green Movement—which, in her account, has Iranian authorities so worried that they are resorting to arbitrary and trumped-up executions to suppress it. Interestingly, after Ms. Fathi’s story was published by The New York Times, Mir-Hossein Mousavi issued a statement on his website, www.kaleme.org (which continues to operate without interference, as far as we can tell), likening the executions to the “unjust judicial procedures that have led to the awe-striking sentences issued for scores of Iranian citizens in recent months”. [4] From this perspective, it also does not fit with the preferred narrative to report that individuals who are members of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization and had been convicted of capital crimes in Iran had had their sentences carried out. This would mean that those individuals had received the same treatment that the U.S. justice system meted out to Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing.

To be fair, The New York Times did not come up with the most loaded headline for a story on this episode; Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty offered “Iran Hangs Five, Including a Teacher”. [5] But, we think it is instructive to note the way in which the same story was headlined in some other newspapers around the world (we are grateful to a www.TheRaceForIran.com reader for bringing these to our attention):

–“Iran hangs 5 members of ‘terrorist groups’, Xinhua
–“Iran hangs five members of Kurdish ‘terrorist’ group”, Reuters
–“Iran hangs five for plotting bomb attacks”, Thaindian News
–“Iran hangs five terrorists”, Tehran Times
–“5 members of terrorist groups executed”, Press TV


Once again, we are not writing to defend the convictions or executions of the five individuals who were put to death at Evin prison in Tehran on Sunday. Just as wrongful convictions (and executions) are possible in the United States, they are possible in Iran as well. But asserting, without substantiation, that the five individuals who died on Sunday were wrongfully convicted and executed in order to advance a pro-Green political agenda is not responsible journalism and misleads the American public.

In 2002-03, The New York Times published multiple pieces on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction by Judith Miller, Michael Gordon, and others that failed to meet some of the most basic standards of journalistic responsibility and helped the George W. Bush Administration create an utterly false justification for the invasion of Iraq. Has the “Grey Lady” learned nothing from that shameful episode?

____________________


Notes:

[1] Iraq redux, redux: This time The Washington Post is rehashing defectors’ arguments, but now about Iran

 http://www.raceforiran.com/iraq-redux-redux-this-time-the-washington-post-is-rehashing-defectors%E2%80%99-arguments-but-now-about-iran


[2] Iran Executes Five Activists, Sending Message to Critics

 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/world/middleeast/10iran.html


[3] Leveretts respond to critics

 http://www.raceforiran.com/leveretts-respond-to-critics


[4] Mousavi Condemns Execution Of Iranian Prisoners

 http://www.eurasiareview.com/2010/05/mousavi-condemns-execution-of-iranian.html


[5] Iran Hangs Five, Including A Teacher

 http://www.rferl.org/content/Iran_Hangs_Five_Including_A_Teacher/2036982.html

____________________

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
- e-mail: hillary@raceforiran.com
- Homepage: http://www.raceforiran.com/is-the-new-york-times-misleading-its-readers-again%E2%80%94this-time-on-iran

Comments

Hide the following 6 comments

Sociopath nation: The New York Times on Iran

13.05.2010 18:35




Sociopath nation: The New York Times on Iran

by Christopher Dowd, 22 April 2010


We are ruled by sociopaths and here is all the proof you need tightly encapsulated in one New York Times editorial:

264 Days and Counting

 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/opinion/22thu2.html?ref=opinion

This one editorial lays bare for the world to see the criminally insane collective mindset of American political, media, and corporate elites.

Today is the 264th day that three American "hikers" were arrested by Iranian border guards after wandering over the border from Iraq . . . and the New York Times is outraged at Iran over this and chose today to take them to task:

Nine months. Two-hundred-sixty-four days. However you total it up, it is too long for three Americans to be cruelly, and unfairly, held in an Iranian jail.

Shane Bauer, Joshua Fattal and Sarah Shourd should have been released long ago. It now seems that Iran’s mullah-led government has made them pawns in the political chess game with the United States over Tehran’s nuclear program. That’s unconscionable.

Really? That's "unconscionable?" Really? Never mind that the US government held 5 Iranian diplomats for 2 1/2 years with no charges of any sort with even the Iraqi and Kurdish regional governments demanding their release. The Times thinks that Iran, surrounded by US armies and armadas and threatened on a near daily basis with attack "options" which include the nuclear option, is acting irrationally here in holding three American "Hikers" for going on 9 months now? And let's not forget that the US is a country whose major politicians speak routinely of funding covert ops in Iran to destabilize its government. Nope- Iran is being a bad freedom hating country here in holding these poor Americans for no logical or rational reason! But that doesn't even begin to fathom the bottom of the hypocrisy barrel in this editorial.

Iran using Americans as pawns in a political "chess game"? Why don't I think the Iranians see their predicament with the US to be a "game"? Oh right- cause unlike the Time's editorial writers and virtually all Americans- a war with the US will be fought on their soil and it won't be a "game" for them. Unlike our political elite- war has consequences for Iran's leaders. It isn't a sick pastime for them like it is for our leaders. It is life and death for millions of their citizens.

And of course the US doesn't use people as political pawns at all! Tell that to the children and elderly who will be killed by US sanctions in Iran. That's not using people as pawns though! That would be in addition to the scores of Iranians killed in plane crashes every year as a direct result of US sanctions on airplane parts for civilian crafts.

Each line of this editorial actually gets more deranged and unhinged from reality:

Since then, the Iranians have permitted only two consular visits — in September and October — by Swiss diplomats representing American interests in Tehran. The hikers had to wait seven agonizing months, until early March, for one phone call apiece to their families back home.

Bwah? Certainly the writers of this editorial are aware that the US held hundreds, if not thousands of men, for years- not months, but years with zero contact with their families, representatives from their governments, or any outside contact with anyone at all- with most if not all being brutally tortured as well? Surely the Times is aware of the over 100 deaths of "detainees" due to torture at the hands of the US government?

So is this how our elites are going to roll from now on? Just pretending that their massive assassination, kidnapping, rendition, torture, and murder regime under the last President didn't happen? Going to pretend that the current President has not all but kept all of these programs going and made them worse?

Still, it gets even worse:

Iranian officials should comply with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and allow regular access to the three Americans. They should stop manipulating the families and grant visas so the mothers can visit their children. The mothers filed applications in January that are still not approved.

The US runs a friggin world wide secret gulag that contains God knows how many people who get no visits from anyone, no phone calls . . . and the writer's of the New York Times editorial board know this! And yet they feel completely at ease taking Iran to task over its far lessor civil rights violations here? These people are out of their minds. Nuts. This editorial is emblematic of criminally insane sociopaths who show absolutely no awareness of their own crimes while constantly working themselves into foaming lathers at the far lessor faults of those around them. This editorial is, in a word, bonkers.

But still, it gets even worse . . .

The fact that Iranian officials cannot agree on charges against the hikers, or back them up, is a sure sign that something fishy is going on.

Yes. I agree. Indeed. That is fishy. When government can't even charge anyone with a crime while holding them? Yep- that is fishy! Know what else is kinda fishy? How about holding a dozen men for being the 9/11 masterminds for going on a decade now with no trial? How about holding a dozen men for that crime for years in total isolation while they were repeatedly tortured using "techniques" specifically designed to elicit false confessions? How about creating entirely new courts for these "masterminds" with rules of evidence that would make Stalin blush? Is that "fishy" New York Times editorial writers? Oh right- of course not. Now when "we" do it.

The scariest thing about this editorial is that foreigners will read this- foreign intelligence political analysts will read this editorial and pretty much conclude the same thing I have here- we are ruled by an elite that is utterly incapable of introspection of any serious sort and that somehow actually thinks it still has the moral high ground to lecture other countries on human rights and due process.

Being out of touch with reality is one thing. Many people are. But being out of touch with reality while brandishing the biggest arsenal the world has ever seen while simultaneously thinking you are inherently good and noble and everyone else around you is evil . . . well, watch out.

Christopher Dowd
- Homepage: http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9870


Don't defend a human rights atrocity

14.05.2010 09:55

Compare and contrast the piece by Iran’s apologists above with the one that appeared earlier this week on Indymedia. The earlier article, attributed to the Communist Party of Iran, stated:

“These five political prisoners are executed despite the large wave of protests both at home and abroad and by the international bodies and human rights institutions since the issue of their death sentences; The Islamic regime, without the slightest regard for the requests to revoke these inhumane charges, carried out the death sentences this Sunday morning. The execution of these five political prisoners shows that this regime is capable of committing any crime and currently the threat of execution is hovering above the head of a number of other political prisoners in the prisons of the inhumane Islamic regime in Iran.”
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/05/450899.html

This, of course, is classic Indymedia. I’ve lost track of the number of times that an article has appeared saying that it’s outrageous for the Western media to criticise Iran’s human rights records… followed five minutes later by a piece calling for a rally to stop an asylum seeker being deported to Iran because he's a trade unionist / political protestor / gay and “they’ll kill him!”.

Now, I harbour a powerful hatred for any of the neo-cons in the US keen to start a war against Iran. And I am relieved that there appears to be little appetite for it among the military or politicians in the UK. OK?

That doesn’t mean we can’t criticise Iran’s actions on this. So have many trade unions in the UK, rightly.

The post above states: “But the more important point here is that Ms. Fathi offers no basis for dismissing official claims that the five individuals executed Sunday had been convicted of carrying out fatal bomb attacks.”

The author also moans that it’s somehow manipulative and biased to point out that one of the people killed was a teacher.

But he was. His name was Farzad Kamangar. He was 35. And there are plenty of reasons for dismissing the “official claims” about this case. For me the key one is that HIS TRIAL LASTED LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES.

 http://www.ei-ie.org/en/news/show.php?id=1254&theme=rights&country=iran


Norvello


@ Norvello

14.05.2010 13:32

Read the original article and amend your comment accordingly.

Stevie Wonder


Which bit, Stevie?

14.05.2010 14:57


Sure, sure, there’s this disclaimer: “we are not out to defend the execution of the five individuals”.

But the thrust of the piece is to attack the American journalist for
1) suggesting that many saw the executions as part of an attempt to quieten-down the protest movement.
2) “asserting, without substantiation, that the five individuals who died on Sunday were wrongfully convicted”

There’s evidence for 1. Just cause the journo didn’t have room to include all the quotes in her piece doesn’t mean they’re not out there. Turn to the Washington Post, for example. It quotes Ali Shakorirad of the Islamic Participation Front, who said: “The government is trying to create a security atmosphere as a crucial month approaches". You can find lots of similar quotes. That’s not to say the government did carry out the executions for that reason – just that many saw it that way.

As for 2) – there’s a lot of evidence of wrongful conviction, certainly in Farzad Kamangar’s case. Who do I trust more, Amnesty or the Iranian government? I’m going to go with Amnesty on this one. Before the execution, an Amnesty spokesman was quoted saying this:

"Prior to his trial, Farzad Kamangar was held incommunicado, tortured and otherwise ill-treated, including by being beaten, flogged and electrocuted. He is now said to suffer from spasms in his arms and legs.

"He was tried in unfair proceedings, during which his access to his lawyer was restricted. Farzad Kamangar has been prohibited, on several occasions and for prolonged periods of time, from seeing his lawyer and family members."

Afterwards an Amnesty spokesperson said this:

"We condemn these executions which were carried out without any prior warning. Despite the serious accusations against them, the five were denied fair trials. Three of the defendants were tortured and two forced to confess' under duress.”

What’s your issue, Stevie?

Norvello


Coda on the Lucas-Leverett debate over Nazila Fathi's Iran article

14.05.2010 20:09


Editorial note:

I am reproducing a series of comments on Scott Lucas' site "Enduring America" (?) site which I think sums up the debate nicely (*).


(*) Iran Special: Executions, Politics, and the Attack on Nazila Fathi and The New York Times
 http://enduringamerica.com/2010/05/14/iran-special-executions-politics-and-the-attack-on-nazila-fathi-and-the-new-york-times/?success


==================

MARK wrote:

Scott, you're typically over-hyping the matter.

The two points to take away from the Leverrets' piece are



1- The totally unsubstantiated link drawn by Fathi between the executions and the Green Movement: specifically, the unsupported claim that the executions were somehow intended to suppress demonstrations — demonstrations that lately appear to have petered out on their own, leaving proponents of the Green Movement to come up with various explanations on why the movement should be considered relevant, and

2- A rather significant but entirely missing fact that should have been mentioned in the article: that PJAK is designated as a terrorist organization even by the US.

The right thing for Fathi to have done is

1- Not drawn the link between the Greens and the executions, or having done so, based it on something more susbtantive than vague claims about what is supposedly "widely seen", and

2- Not left out the bit about PJAK, and instead reported it along with whatever criticism it deserved.

That's really the crux of it. This post is a typically cherry picked effort based on hype and emotionalism. And you're playing right into the hands of the anti-Iran, bomb Iran crowd. Remember that such efforts at this type of "journalism" were what contributed to the suffering of millions of Iraqis during the Iraq War debacle. Your efforts are in line with this happening again.

=========================================

Scott Lucas wrote in reply to Mark

Mark,

The Leveretts were in trouble over their initial (won't use that over-hyped word "over-hyped") attack on Fathi so Cyrus tried to pull it back to the two points you posted above.

Even on that narrow ground, the Leveretts have no sources and precious little argument. Fathi didn't draw a specific link with the Greens in the article, nor did Ghaemi. That's the Leveretts' construction so they can set up their claim of "pro-Green" bias.

On PJAK, my priority the starting point is the legal process in the trials and executions -- was the claim of membership established? The Leveretts' starting point is the politics of "terrorism", so they can relegate that issue of legal process and rights and the problem it causes for Government legitimacy. I'm happy with my choice.

I think I got the irony in your last paragraph's emotional escalation over hype and emotionalism.

So back to the critique. No hype. No emotionalism. Sources. Facts. Analysis. Fair Criticism.

===========================================

My reply to Scott



Oh come on Scott, Fathi's directly referenced the Greens and linked the executions to them using the "widely seen" statement. Claiming that the anti-government demonstrations WOULD take place BUT FOR government repression is a standard talking point by some people who have an agenda to insist on the continued importance of the Greens despite their lackluster performance lately, and this is precisely what Fathi tried to pass off as news.

And the Leveretts repeatedly stated in their blog post that they don't support the executions but are criticizing the coverage by Fathi, so this is not anargument over a human rights issues.

Also, you confuse the Leveretts and their blog with reporters and their newspapers. It is not the job of the Leveretts to come up with original research or find sources etc. They are in no position to know for a fact whether the Kurds were members of PJAK or not. But that doesn't mean that they can't criticize a reporter who completely leaves out a very salient fact that the executed folks were (at lease accused) members of an organization that the US considers to be terrorists. It doesn't take a lawyer to figure this out.

==========================================

Scott Lucas's Reply



Fathi referred to protesters and people who might demonstrate but not Greens or the Green Movement. Nor did she claim that the demonstrations would definitely take place were it not for Government repression; she merely referred an effort to intimidate protesters from marking the anniversary of last year’s huge anti-government rallies".

But these are trifles --- the salient point is that Race for Iran tried to shift attention from the executions by setting up Fathi as the main story. She's not.

If RFI is serious about considering Iran's internal matters instead of casting unsupported judgements, then, yes, the authors should become reporters. They should assemble evidence and assess it before ripping at good journalists who --- whatever the errors they make --- attempt to do that.

And the authors should be man and woman enough to admit that the starting point for this story --- if they are concerned about Iran --- is the issues of justice and human rights around this case. It doesn't take a lawyer to figure that out.

================================================

My reply to Scott Lucas

Oh fer Chrissakes Scott, the implication was clear to everyone. Who do you think those "protesters" she referred to were?

And YOU are the one trying to shift attention by ignoring Fathi's pushing of an agenda and instead trying to make this about supposedly whether the Leveretts support human rights or not.

You yourself conceded -- after teeth-pulling -- that Fathi should not have 1- skipped over the fact that PJAK is listed as a terrorist organzation and 2- inserted what you call the "analytical statement" about how the executions were supposedly "widely seen" and those two points were precisely what the Leveretts complained about ( and your subsequent attempt to give credibility to Fathi's claim about the timing of the executions supposedly being “rushed” was also shown to be invalid.) So just give it up already. The Leveretts are not required to first disclaim any and all atrocities that happen in the world to your satisfaction, in order to critique a journalist who quite richly deserved it.

Cyrus Safdari
mail e-mail: iranaffairs@yahoo.com
- Homepage: http://enduringamerica.com/2010/05/14/iran-special-executions-politics-and-the-attack-on-nazila-fathi-and-the-new-york-times/?success


you can condemn the hypocrisy without condoning the action

14.05.2010 23:25

@Norvello and others

Just because you criticise the hypocrisy of the US doesn't mean you support what Iran is doing. Religious nutters in power are scumbags whatever the religion. That doesn't mean to say the US doesn't use hype and lies to suit its own agenda as well.

anon