FAIR’s latest Action Alert asks media activists to ask New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt about a recent Elisabeth Bumiller article that reported on former Guantanamo prisoners “returning” to terrorism–even though it was not clear there was evidence that any of the released prisoners had ever been involved in “terrorism” of any sort.
Please leave copies of your messages to Hoyt in the comment thread here.
Re: 5/21/09 Pentagon Propaganda Misleading report on Guantánamo and terrorism
Dear Mr. Hoyt,
Please examine the way the Times handled its May 21 story about the Pentagon’s claims regarding Guantánamo detainees. The paper’s original report did not do enough to challenge the Pentagon’s claims. And the paper’s subsequent changes to the story warrant some explanation to readers.
Here’s what I sent to the NY Times today regarding this horrible headline :
Subject: don’t print Pentagon figures about detainees in front page headlines without investigating the history and veracity of their claims !!
“1 in 7 Freed Detainees Rejoins Fight, Report Finds”
One phone call to Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall would have disabused you of any notion that the Pentagon figures are completely accurate and unbiased.
The title should have read “yet another estimate of freed detainees rejoinging the fight from the Pentagon”.
By Denbeaux’s count, they have issued over 20 different estimates over the years, all unsubstantiated and often conflicting with previous estimates.
I will add Elisabeth Bumiller to the growing list of hacks on your staff who swallow administration and government stories whole.
Even if she had gone on to list some challenges to the report, the headline would have been misleading.
I was very disappointed and concerned with the story that the NY Times ran on May 21st concerning the Pentagon’s claims that Guantánamo detainees “returned” to terrorism, “returned” to the battlefield. It seemed to me that the Times simply repeated what the Pentagon stated without any investigation, any reflection.
Surely, your paper should have examined whether “1 in 7” (an alarming number) was accurate. Although the Department of Defense might not make a big distinction between “confirmed” and “suspected”–the NY Times should and must.
Please do a follow-up piece to this story……with some examination of the facts, please. As a veteran newspaper person, you realize that sometimes the Pentagon will “leak” a report because they have a hidden agenda, correct? Perhaps a follow-up story should look at that issue also.