After a correction by the paper earlier this week, today in What Happened to Skepticism? the NY Times Public Editor tried to explain how and why it printed a "seriously flawed" article with the false headline 1 in 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds on its front page on May 21st, 2009.
[The article] was seriously flawed and greatly overplayed. It demonstrated again the dangers when editors run with exclusive leaked material in politically charged circumstances and fail to push back skeptically. The lapse is especially unfortunate at The Times, given its history in covering the run-up to the Iraq war.
The Times admits the author, Elisabeth Bumiller, "pestered" the Pentagon for a brief peek at their report, and that's the real story behind how the media that sold the Iraq war are still successfully selling the Pentagon's and Cheney's view of Guantanamo and national security.
The story ran the day Obama was presenting his national security policy plan - which includes closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Echoing the Times' Judith Miller/Iraq days, the story was practically simulcast with Dick Cheney's rebuttal to Obama.
Times public editor Clark Hoyt continues:
The article seemed to adopt the Pentagon’s contention that freed prisoners had “returned” to terrorism, ignoring independent reporting by The Times and others that some of them may not have been involved in terrorism before but were radicalized at Guantánamo. (emphasis mine)
Of course, if journalists had to use the language of law enforcement and criminal justice when reporting on Guantanamo, that couldn't happen. The Times would be ethically and legally bound to use the word "alleged" and report the charges in any article that refers to prisoners. But since almost none of the Gitmo detainees have been charged, the Times is winging a different policy and following the Pentagon's lead. (Without the Pentagon's guidance, I think when a detained person has not been charged with a crime and is being held for something of value, the legal term may be "kidnap victim" or possibly "hostage".) Time honored rules like the presumption of innocence, or concerns about defamation, no longer apply.
So the propaganda is already a complete success when not a single journalist or editor at the New York Times feels they need to use the word "alleged" to describe the "terrorists" there. Then any story on the prisoners helps the Pentagon -- unless it also says something like:
Of the released Guantanamo inmates named in the report, none was ever charged with terrorism or other crime, and no credible evidence against them had been publicly reported at the time of their release.
And that's the real story in Elisabeth Bumiller's "pestering" confession. If a clarifying background line like that one had appeared in her article, what's the chance that her secret Pentagon source would return her next call? She owed him a favor - and it was paid back immediately on the front page of the Times.
It worked perfectly again this time. Within days, Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid was swearing that no Guantanamo prisoner should ever enter the United States, and suddenly a poll showed 2 out of 3 Americans agreeing with him.
The rest of the Public Editor's revelations this morning are fascinating. They confirm it's about access to "exclusives" from anonymous sources, manufactured deadline pressure, and provocative titles that may be misleading but put the story on the front page. It helps explain why so many media news businesses are failing in both credibility and finance, and why bloggers at Daily Kos and Docudharma produce more accurate reports on this subject months ahead of the NY Times.
The Times' public editor took a step today, but at best it's just a beginning. Bumiller's original title isn't even mentioned in the Editor's Note that now accompanies the updated article. The word "alleged" still doesn't appear in either version of the article, or the Public Editor's mea culpa. Neither does the word "propaganda" - a word the Times' own David Barstow used to describe the Pentagon's on-air military analyst program that also manipulated the media. Words and concepts like "prosecuted", "innocent", "acquitted" and "freed" are also jarringly missing from the articles - though inmates like the Uighers were found innocent by the Pentagon years ago, and were ordered free by a judge last fall.
Most important, today's article and Barstow's work show the problem is systemic. The Times' editors and reporters can't blame the Pentagon for their current policy.
I have a suggestion: how about we tell the NY Times Public Editor and his colleagues not to wait for Guantanamo to be closed. Starting today, they can make sure the paper of record uses the word "alleged" in every report on prisoners who haven't been convicted of anything - even if they've been in Guantanamo - just as if we were, already once again, a civilized nation with a functioning criminal justice system.
Update - Thanks for putting this on the Recommended list. Please keep sending notes to the Times' Public Editor at the link just above.