The New York Times Is Misleading The Public On Iran

Iran / USARobert Naiman writes at Al Jazeera English:

It’s deja vu all over again. AIPAC is trying to trick the United States into another catastrophic war with a Middle Eastern country on behalf of the Likud Party’s colonial ambitions, and the New York Times is misleading the public with allegations that say that the country is developing “weapons of mass destruction”.In an article attributed to Steven Erlanger on January 4 (“Europe Takes Bold Step Toward a Ban on Iranian Oil”), this paragraph appeared:

The threats from Iran, aimed both at the West and at Israel, combined with a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran’s nuclear programme has a military objective, is becoming an important issue in the American presidential campaign [emphasis my own].

The claim that there is “a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran’s nuclear programme has a military objective” is misguided.

As Washington Post‘s Ombudsman Patrick Pexton noted on December 9:

But the IAEA report does not say Iran has a bomb, nor does it say it is building one, only that its multiyear effort pursuing nuclear technology is sophisticated and broad enough that it could be consistent with building a bomb.

Indeed, if you try now to find the offending paragraph on the New York Times website, you can’t. They took it down. But there is no note, like there is supposed to be, acknowledging that they changed the article, and that there was something wrong with it before. Sneaky, huh?

You can still find the original here.

Indeed (at least at the time of writing), if you go to the New York Times website and search with the phrase “military objective”, the article pops right up. But if you open the article, the text is gone. But again, there is no explanatory note saying that they changed the text.

Note that in other contexts, the New York Times claims to be quite punctilious about corrections.

This is not an isolated example in the Times‘ reporting…

Read more here.

, ,

  • Anti_Secret_Squirrel

    Except this time the American people don’t want to fight another war! GO AWOL if we do.  Just like  Yahoo saying in the Grand Canyon article that the GOP and big business wanted to mine there for Uranium (even though Obama will not allow it) for “nuclear power”.  Yea right they wanna mine there to Uranium to build some more nukes like we need more than one or two to destroy the entire planet (remember this is not the Atom Bomb that only devastates a whole town like saw in Japan it would blow up half the world and nuclear winter/devastation would affect the rest). 

  • Anti_Secret_Squirrel

    Except this time the American people don’t want to fight another war! GO AWOL if we do.  Just like  Yahoo saying in the Grand Canyon article that the GOP and big business wanted to mine there for Uranium (even though Obama will not allow it) for “nuclear power”.  Yea right they wanna mine there to Uranium to build some more nukes like we need more than one or two to destroy the entire planet (remember this is not the Atom Bomb that only devastates a whole town like saw in Japan it would blow up half the world and nuclear winter/devastation would affect the rest). 

    • Anarchy Pony

      Well the average thermonuclear weapon can destroy roughly 60 square miles, and more powerful ones can do quite a bit more. One Triton nuclear submarine carries enough nuclear firepower to destroy the surface area of an entire hemisphere, so you only actually only need two of those to basically wipe out the entire surface of the planet. But even a limited nuclear exchange, of roughly two dozen nuclear weapons could possibly unleash a nuclear winter that could end all agricultural productivity and drop temperatures as much as 10 degrees worldwide, likely leading to the extinction of at the very least the majority of large complex organisms that currently exist, that includes you and me.

      • http://twitter.com/Sparky4Peace Candace McFarland

        if only they knew…

  • Vittu

    Of course it is misleading, that is what NYT is for.

  • Vittu

    Of course it is misleading, that is what NYT is for.

  • Jin The Ninja

    Repost from my prior post on Alternet (in the ‘spirit’ of an article about the NYT)

    “The NYT is a ‘rag’ of imperialism and the excesses of empire. The
    internet provides many more dynamic progressive sources of news and
    information that are not filtered through a ‘neo-liberal’ consumer
    capitalist lens.”

  • Jin (仁)

    Repost from my prior post on Alternet (in the ‘spirit’ of an article about the NYT)

    “The NYT is a ‘rag’ of imperialism and the excesses of empire. The
    internet provides many more dynamic progressive sources of news and
    information that are not filtered through a ‘neo-liberal’ consumer
    capitalist lens.”

  • Mr Willow

    Where have I heard this conversation before?

    “They’ve got WMD’s!””Have you seen them?”
    “No, but they’ve got to have them. They’re ruled by a despotic tyrant!” 
    “So you’re going to do what?”
    “We’re going to go in there and take them!”
    “The WMD’s you have no proof of them having?”
    “That our overseas intelligence says they have.”
    “Oh, well, have they seen them?”
    “No, but they all agree that they have them!”
    “Based on a hunch?”
    “Yeah, they have to have them. A terror state with uranium. . . what else are they going to do with it!?”
    “So, you’re going to invade, inadvertently (I hope) killing numerous civilians—”
    “Let’s go bring Sadda-a-a-Ahmadinejad to justice!!! (America. . . Fuck Yeah!)” 

    I’ll start giving credence to these ‘they must not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons’ diatribes when we (the US) surrenders all of the ones we have stockpiled. 

    Also, does anyöne else find it hysterical that the Republicans are respecting the opinions of the French government? Any other time, the French are the very model of anti-American, nanny state, socialist, sissies, but apparently not when they provide you with ‘probable cause’ to cause more death. 

  • Mr Willow

    Where have I heard this conversation before?

    “They’ve got WMD’s!””Have you seen them?”
    “No, but they’ve got to have them. They’re ruled by a despotic tyrant!” 
    “So you’re going to do what?”
    “We’re going to go in there and take them!”
    “The WMD’s you have no proof of them having?”
    “That our overseas intelligence says they have.”
    “Oh, well, have they seen them?”
    “No, but they all agree that they have them!”
    “Based on a hunch?”
    “Yeah, they have to have them. A terror state with uranium. . . what else are they going to do with it!?”
    “So, you’re going to invade, inadvertently (I hope) killing numerous civilians—”
    “Let’s go bring Sadda-a-a-Ahmadinejad to justice!!! (America. . . Fuck Yeah!)” 

    I’ll start giving credence to these ‘they must not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons’ diatribes when we (the US) surrenders all of the ones we have stockpiled. 

    Also, does anyöne else find it hysterical that the Republicans are respecting the opinions of the French government? Any other time, the French are the very model of anti-American, nanny state, socialist, sissies, but apparently not when they provide you with ‘probable cause’ to cause more death. 

  • Anarchy Pony

    Well the average thermonuclear weapon can destroy roughly 60 square miles, and more powerful ones can do quite a bit more. One Triton nuclear submarine carries enough nuclear firepower to destroy the surface area of an entire hemisphere, so you only actually only need two of those to basically wipe out the entire surface of the planet. But even a limited nuclear exchange, of roughly two dozen nuclear weapons could possibly unleash a nuclear winter that could end all agricultural productivity and drop temperatures as much as 10 degrees worldwide, likely leading to the extinction of at the very least the majority of large complex organisms that currently exist, that includes you and me.

  • Dougjones

    So the NY Times will eventually become the new version of Der Stürmer.  No photos, no proof of WMD’s.  Just an article to rile the hornet’s nest. 

  • Dougjones

    So the NY Times will eventually become the new version of Der Stürmer.  No photos, no proof of WMD’s.  Just an article to rile the hornet’s nest. 

  • http://twitter.com/Sparky4Peace Candace McFarland

    I am hoping we are not that gullible again…of course that may mean the 1% may need to kill some more citizens.

  • http://twitter.com/Sparky4Peace Candace McFarland

    I am hoping we are not that gullible again…of course that may mean the 1% may need to kill some more citizens.

  • http://twitter.com/Sparky4Peace Candace McFarland

    if only they knew…

  • http://twitter.com/Sparky4Peace Candace McFarland

    if only they knew…

  • http://twitter.com/Sparky4Peace Candace McFarland

    if only they knew…

  • D.D.B.

    New York Times as cheerleader for war? Big surprise!

    The real surprise is what Iran has up its sleeve.
    They will unleash PURE HELL on the USA!

    This is a country with no history of invading its neighbours. But a long history of Violence.

    If you liked Iraq – You’ll love Iran!

  • D.D.B.

    New York Times as cheerleader for war? Big surprise!

    The real surprise is what Iran has up its sleeve.
    They will unleash PURE HELL on the USA!

    This is a country with no history of invading its neighbours. But a long history of Violence.

    If you liked Iraq – You’ll love Iran!

21
More in Iran, Middle East
Indefinite Detention Isn’t the Only Troubling Thing About NDAA

Aaron Cynic writes at Diatribe Media: The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 breezed through Congress and headed to the White House, even though public opposition to parts of the...

Close