FAIR’s new alert looks at recent coverage of Iran at NPR and USA Today. If you’d like to share your letter to those outlets, you can do so in the comments thread below.
Peter Hart
Peter Hart was the activist director of FAIR for 15 years, as well as the co-host of FAIR's radio show CounterSpin. He is now the senior field communications officer for Food & Water Watch.
◄ Previous Post The Accelerating Assault on Journalism
► Next Post Washington Post: Big Government…Isn’t That Big
Comments
I wrote letters to both NPR and USA Today, the following is what I wrote to NPR:
People listen to and trust NPR to be unbiased and fair in its reporting. That is why I am so upset about correspondent Mara Liasson’s claim that Barack Obama “has done everything he can to avoid another foreign military involvement, but he can’t avoid it after the widespread use of chemical weapons on this scale.”
First, she states that non-military options are impossible. May I ask how she can know this??? Secondly, how does she know Syria launched the attack, when I have not seen or heard any proof that the government was responsible. The U.N. chemical inspectors are still in Syria, and are not even scheduled to leave until Monday. They have not made any statement that the government is responsible for the attack.
Do you remember the inspectors looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before Bush started the horrendous and unnecessary war against Iraq? They were forced by the U.S. to leave before they were able to finish their inspection, and lo and behold, THERE WERE NO WEAPONS!!!
The media pushed for the war then, and it looks like you are pushing for this war, too.
Media has a responsibility to report the facts – not opinions and suspicion as facts. Please, take your job seriously, and realize how important it is!
As a former human rights observer in Iran, both before and after it became the Islamic Republic, I’m well aware of how that country operates. One thing the current rulers do NOT do, however, is make false claims about their defense capabilities. At no time has the IRI said it was developing nuclear weapons. No evidence exists that they are lying. And yet, somehow, Marra Liasson — using a form of journalism rarely seen outside Nazi Germany — claims (falsely) that Iran not only IS developing nuclear weapons, but also has the “potential” and the intent to use chemical weapons.
Where is your evidence, Ms. Liasson?? What is the basis for these astonishing assertions? Of all things this world needs right now, deliberate falsification of the facts about WMD in Iran and Syria, as well as unsubstantiated claims that both countries have already violated international law with regard to chemical weapons — are not among them.
Journalism in this country has had a long and dreary history of being used by CIA to distort the facts when US foreign policy needed an excuse to go to war, counting on the probability that no one would have the wherewithal to challenge them on the ‘mis-statements’, much less challenge the illegal wars in the International Court of the Hague.
However, by insinuating — without evidence — that Syria and Iran have both used chemical weapons shows not only a complete lack of journalistic ethics, but a thin cover for advancing US intelligence agendas. Sham on you, Ms. Liasson, and shame on NPR. So much a ‘free’ press in the United States.
Margot Lachlan White, JD
Former Human Rights Observe in Iran
I sent this to both npr and usa today:
I insist that you correct your misreporting about an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Are you a free press media outlet or a propaganda outlet for the neocons?
This is exactly the same hype you delivered to start war in Iraq.
Please respond to me.
Great comments folks. Spot on! But the answer is ultimately YES…they are propaganda networks when it matters most. They seem to lull people in with “responsible reporting” and then making the worst “errors” when it matters most. HMMM? Really it seems more like just a old fashioned bait and switch operation…where it becomes “liberal” or “progressive” to be for war now…although I would argue it always has been but they sell it different.
No one of a certain age can forget Vietnam – wrongheadedness caused so many deaths and so much heartache. Next, we have Iraq – where we killed thousands of innocent people and lost many of ours. And now we are still in Afghanistan, where many are dead or ruined by the horrible IEDs.
All we can do as journalists is to give factual, true information. We should never jump to conclusions.
For example,
We now hear that U.S. intelligence officials are getting ready to release some intercepted communications that they believe will be even more evidence that it was Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who ordered this chemical attack.
This not journalism.
And then:
Referencing a comment from White House press secretary Jay Carney about “other potential users of chemical weapons,” she then made this claim:
Other potential users means Iran. This is not just about chemical weapons. It’s not just about Assad. This is a proxy war. Iran, who is developing its own weapons of mass destruction, is currently backing the Syrian regime, and it is watching very carefully to see what the U.S. does.
Quite a leap – but then she keeps on leaping. Please ask your staff to report only those things that are fact.
Thank you.
(I hope you don’t mind me using your words. I had to answer the call to action but had no time to do my own research. I trust your reporting and love the work you do. Thank you.) These are my letters:
To NPR –
On your show “All Things Considered” on August 27, your correspondent Mara Liasson claimed that Barack Obama “has done everything he can to avoid another foreign military involvement, but he can’t avoid it after the widespread use of chemical weapons on this scale.” Ms. Liasson cannot possibly know that all non-military responses are impossible.
Furthermore, Ms. Liasson cannot know whether Syria launched the attack based solely on having heard that U.S. intelligence officials “are getting ready to release some intercepted communications that they believe will be even more evidence that it was Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who ordered this chemical attack.” That’s bad journalism. But it doesn’t end there.
Referencing a comment made by White House press secretary Jay Carney regarding “other potential users of chemical weapons,” Ms. Liasson then made the following assertion: “Other potential users means Iran. This is not just about chemical weapons. It’s not just about Assad. This is a proxy war. Iran, who is developing its own weapons of mass destruction, is currently backing the Syrian regime, and it is watching very carefully to see what the U.S. does.”
If Ms. Liasson is referring to nuclear weapons, there are many unsubstantiated claims that Iran “is developing its own weapons of mass destruction,” but these claims are certainly not facts. If by “weapons of mass destruction” she means chemical weapons, it is worth mentioning that Iran’s history vis-a-vis chemical weapons is as a victim of such attacks from Iraq in 1988, which received intelligence from its then-ally, the United States, to help target its sarin and mustard gas strikes.
At such a delicate time, such reports could bolster public support for military action against Syria despite the fact that we lack the information to make an informed decision as a nation about whether to involve ourselves in another country’s civil war that is not a threat to us.
Please correct your mistake and avoid inflammatory reporting. Let the facts, when we know them, speak for themselves.
To USA Today –
In an editorial titled “Syrian chemical attack demands precise strike,” you used unsubstantiated assertions about Iran having a nuclear weapons program to advocate U.S. involvement in Syria, arguing that a failure to attack would “demolish U.S. credibility, not just in Syria but also in Iran, which continues to pursue nuclear weapons despite repeated U.S. warnings.”
We, your readers, deserve journalism that responsibly reports only what is known about Syria. Unsupported claims about Iranian nuclear weapons are not a justification for war with Syria.
My email to those at “All Things Considered”
Dear hosts and staff of “All Things Considered,
On your show “All Things Considered” on August 27, your correspondent Mara Liasson claimed that Barack Obama “has done everything he can to avoid another foreign military involvement, but he can’t avoid it after the widespread use of chemical weapons on this scale.” Ms. Liasson neglected to even try to justify her claim that Mr. Obama cannot “avoid another foreign military involvement”. Moreover, the specious nature of such a claim is compounded by the fact that a U.S effort to attack Syria faces international legal obstacles; NPR and the Federal government may scoff at international law, but your journalists must at least make that attitude clear to your audience.
Furthermore, Ms. Liasson cannot know whether Syria launched the attack based solely on having heard that U.S. intelligence officials “are getting ready to release some intercepted communications that they believe will be even more evidence that it was Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who ordered this chemical attack.” This claim is not evidence, and as far as your audience is concerned, mere gossip, rumor; sadly, it was gossip and rumor promulgated by media outlets, including NPR, that led to the devastating and bloody American war in Iraq.
Indeed, claims of governments possessing and developing weapons of mass destruction are serious, and requires evidence if the hosts and staff of “All Things Considered” have any sense of responsibility.
Referencing a comment made by White House press secretary Jay Carney regarding “other potential users of chemical weapons,” Ms. Liasson made the following assertion: “Other potential users means Iran. This is not just about chemical weapons. It’s not just about Assad. This is a proxy war. Iran, who is developing its own weapons of mass destruction, is currently backing the Syrian regime, and it is watching very carefully to see what the U.S. does.” THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IRAN IS DEVELOPING OR PURSUING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Since Ms. Liasson and her colleagues at NPR are so fond of taking claims by state and military officials as facts, read and report on the readily available documents of annual intelligence agency and pentagon briefings to Congress on Iran. where all such briefings indicate explicitly that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IRAN IS DEVELOPING OR PURSUING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION; these documents are open secrets. By not availing yourself and reporting these open secrets, you are wittingly concealing their content and/or just being terrible journalists. Please respect your audiences’ right to be well-informed, and support ALL your claims with evidence and context.
-Sena
My email to USA Today
Dear USA Today
In an editorial titled “Syrian chemical attack demands precise strike,” you used unsubstantiated claims about Iran having a nuclear weapons program to advocate U.S. involvement in Syria, arguing that a failure to attack would “demolish U.S. credibility, not just in Syria but also in Iran, which continues to pursue nuclear weapons despite repeated U.S. warnings.”
There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, nor is there any evidence Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Since the staff of USA Today are so fond of taking claims by state and military officials as facts, read and report on the readily available documents of annual U.S intelligence agency and pentagon briefings to Congress on Iran. where all such briefings indicate explicitly that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IRAN IS DEVELOPING OR PURSUING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION; these documents are open secrets. By not availing yourself to and reporting these open secrets, you are wittingly concealing their content and/or being terrible journalists, all in an effort to promote attacking Syria, whether you realize that or not. Please respect your readers’ rights to be well-informed, and support ALL your claims with evidence and context.
-Sena
Proxy wars and sloppy journalism
Please correct your statements on All Things considered that indicated that Iran is developing “its own weapons of mass destruction.” An Iranian nuclear weapons program is NOT confirmed. Also, in terms of the role of journalism as presenting impartial facts, it would be relevant to mention that the US provided Iraq with evidence of troop locations to use chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers.
It is long past time to begin evaluating “official” statements in terms of the actual evidence and of history rather than playing cheerleader for the official line.
I recently filed a MediaBugs report on the NPR story (it’s here: http://mediabugs.org/bugs/a-whiff-of-evidence?msg=Bug+updated%21) that I think touches on the main point of this news alert.
Letter to NPR
Once again as was the case with the lead up to Bush’s invasion of Iraq, we have NPR following the mainstream press with respect to Syria (Assad’s “alleged” chemical attack) and Iran (“alleged” nuclear weapons program) in the service of increasing the drumbeat for yet another U.S. military strike on a sovereign nation. It would be nice to see NPR live up to it’s original mission by providing alternate views and interjecting some skepticism with respect to these stories
Patrick
In addition to the MediaBugs report I mentioned earlier, I also sent this to All Things Considered via the form letter on the NPR site (and a similar message to USA Today):
Considering Everything
If you were listening to NPR’s All Things Considered this past August 27 you would have heard a typical corporate media discussion about the pros and pros of bombing Syria. The conversation was largely framed by two options. Should the US hit the Assad regime hard or hit it even harder? All things considered, it was hardly a consideration of all the things the US might possibly do to stop the bloodshed in the war-torn Middle Eastern nation. The idea of seeking some kind of peaceful negotiated settlement between the fighting factions was nowhere to be found on the news desk. That’s not to say NPR’s coverage lacked a broader vision. In fact correspondent Mara Liasson went so far as to describe impending US military action in Syria as a “proxy war” with Iran, who she noted “is developing its own weapons of mass destruction.”
While you could interpret a potential US military strike on Syria as a proxy war with Iran, the actual existence of Iranian nuclear or chemical weapons programs shouldn’t be open to interpretation. It either has them or it doesn’t. Liasson offered nothing to refute the latest IAEA findings that point to the absence of any Iranian program on the brink of building nuclear weapons nor did she give us even a whiff of evidence that Iran is producing chemical warfare agents. After digging deep down into her reporter’s bag to get to the bottom of the story, the only thing she had to offer listeners was an unsubstantiated claim. I remember hearing one of those somewhere before. It was about ten years ago, when that exact same claim was the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq. In the run-up to the war in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction was the hot news topic that quickly cooled off as hopes of finding any vanished into the thin air from which the reports came from in the first place.
Unverified claims about weapons of mass destruction should sound vaguely familiar to most Americans. It’s the drum beat that led us marching into the war in Iraq, where we never did find any weapons of mass destruction but instead much more than we ever bargained for. It’s time for NPR’s All Things Considered and perhaps other news outlets to consider changing their tune and basing their reporting of this story and others on solid facts we can stand by instead of the shifting sands of speculation we have been given so far.
I’m not surprised by jingoist bilge in USA UBER ALLES.
But at least theoretically, NPR ought to do better.
So I sent the following to ATC under the title
“All War-Mongering Permitted (AMPlify)
“Is the report I quote below accurate? If so, NPR could save some executive salaries by becoming a sub-department under State or the Pentagon.
“Or at least acknowledge that Liasson is on some other payroll.”
… and quoted the FAIR blog post.
Do you have the right address for NPR? My post bounced:
“Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:
“atc@npr.org
“Your message can’t be delivered because delivery to this address is restricted.”
@Eric
I’m not on the FAIR staff but I saw your message and thought I’d reply. I used that address when I contacted NPR and it seemed to get through okay at the time. I’ve also used NPR’s online contact form (http://help.npr.org/npr/includes/customer/npr/custforms/contactus.aspx), to contact All Things Considered. That might work for you.
Thanks, Johnny. I sent it again and got the same bounce, so the name of the show — ALL Things Considered — is clearly a lie.
So I sent it using the contact form you supplied. But I admitted to being a damn furriner, so AMPlify will likely deem it not worth consideration.
So few option of real investigative journalism and you are corect about NPR and PBS! Since Citizens United (Against us) they the PersonHoods now own that MSM outlet too, so I have quit donating to their corporate proaganda machine.
I sent this to NPR with the subject “Journalistic Excellence”
I am writing because I object to Mara Liasson’s report on All Things Considered misreporting claims about Syria and Iran. As the threat of a reckless, dangerous, and illegal US or US-led assault on Syria is looking closer than ever, these blatant lies and misrepresentations are eerily reminiscent of the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. Ms. Liasson claims, “We now hear that U.S. intelligence officials are getting ready to release some intercepted communications that they believe will be even more evidence that it was Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who ordered this chemical attack.”
Then she asserts, “Other potential users means Iran. This is not just about chemical weapons. It’s not just about Assad. This is a proxy war. Iran, who is developing its own weapons of mass destruction, is currently backing the Syrian regime, and it is watching very carefully to see what the U.S. does.”
Is this objective journalism, and the journalistic excellence that NPR aspires to? I ask you to to correct the misreporting about an Iranian nuclear weapons program, chemical weapons in Syria and fire Mara Liasson so that she can foment hatred and spin her lies on Fox News.
Sincerely,
Catherine Strout
ha ha then I received this:Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:
atc@npr.org
Your message can’t be delivered because delivery to this address is restricted.
@Catherine Strout
I just sent a message to atc@npr.org complimenting the station on a segment it did about Fukushima and it seemed to get through AOK. Maybe they only accept kudos now. Another person on this thread had the same problem. I think they finally used NPR’s online feedback form (http://help.npr.org/npr/includes/customer/npr/custforms/contactus.aspx).
how then did all those people who appear to have been gassed actually die? what is the alternative hypothesis? I dont have any cia contacts but there certainly appear to be a lot of dead people–what does the evidence establish; does anyone on these posts know from a source that was there?