Yesterday evening, I posted a story on the Just Foreign Policy blog about the lack of skepticism displayed by the New York Times in their article, "Hezbollah Is Blamed in Attack on Israeli Tourists in Bulgaria." The first paragraph of last night's version of this article read,
A senior American official confirmed Israel’s assertions on Thursday that the suicide bomber who killed five Israelis in an attack here on Wednesday was a member of a Hezbollah cell operating in Bulgaria.
I took issue with the use of "confirmed" here, since no confirming evidence is mentioned in the article. In fact, the article admits that the identity of the suspect was still unknown and that the official referred to in the above paragraph "declined to describe what specific intelligence — intercepted communications, analysis of the bomber’s body parts and other details — that led analysts to conclude that the suicide bomber belonged to Hezbollah."
Well, the New York Times revised the beginning of the article sometime this morning. Unfortunately, it was not for the better.
Here's how the article now begins:
American officials on Thursday identified the suicide bomber responsible for a deadly attack on Israeli vacationers here as a member of a Hezbollah cell that was operating in Bulgaria and looking for such targets, corroborating Israel’s assertions and making the bombing a new source of tension with Iran.
One senior American official said the current American intelligence assessment was that the bomber, who struck Wednesday, killing five Israelis, had been “acting under broad guidance” to hit Israeli targets when opportunities presented themselves, and that the guidance had been given to Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group, by Iran, its primary sponsor. Two other American officials confirmed that Hezbollah was behind the bombing, but declined to provide additional details.
Yet, the
Times admits that
The bomber had a fake Michigan driver’s license, but there are no indications that he had any connection to the United States, the American official said, adding that there were no details yet about the bomber like his name or nationality. He also declined to describe what specific intelligence — intercepted communications, analysis of the bomber’s body parts or other details — that led analysts to conclude that the bomber belonged to Hezbollah.
Meanwhile, in Bulgaria,
Officials here have said they have the man’s fingerprints and his DNA, and are trying to identify a man roughly 36 years old, who they suspect was in the country between four and seven days before the blast.
So, these "senior American officials" have identified the bomber as Hezbollah, yet they have no details about him like his name or nationality? Sounds suspect. According to the article, the Bulgarians don't even know how the suspect got into the country, how he travelled around, or where he stayed. If the Americans were able to identify his affiliations, they should have
some information about him. But none of this information, if it exists, has been made public.
Furthermore, here's what the Washington Post is saying:
Israel offered no concrete evidence tying the bombing to Iran, and Bulgarian officials cautioned that it was too early to attribute responsibility.
And this:
U.S. intelligence officials said it was “plausible” that Hezbollah carried out the attack but that analysts at the CIA and other agencies were still evaluating the intelligence surrounding the bombing and had not reached a conclusion.
“I think there’s a lot of people that assume, and have since day one, that this is Hezbollah,” said a senior U.S. official, who added that U.S. intelligence agencies had not reached such an assessment.
And this:
Like the Bulgarians, U.S. officials declined to cast blame for the bombing. Some Israeli analysts questioned Israel’s quick certainty about the perpetrator and said it might have been premature to name Iran and Hezbollah.
“As long as we do not have any solid information about it, it is better to wait,” said Danny Yatom, a former director of the Israeli spy agency Mossad.
So what evidence, beyond mere assertions and conjectures, did this senior American official offer the
Times reporters? And was it confirming evidence? Or are they merely taking him at his word, even though it's contrary to other reports coming out of the US government?
Just as in the previous version of this article, it sounds like the Times was offered no evidence to back up the American officials' claims that the bomber was affiliated with Hezbollah acting under the guidance of Iran. Why the Times feels so confident in the identity and affiliations of the bomber when no proof has been made public is a mystery. The Times ought to be more skeptical. They should revise the relevant sections of this article to reflect the lack of confidence the Times ought to have in the reports coming from these "senior American officials."
I've emailed the Times' public editor, Art Brisbane, twice about this already--once yesterday evening when I first read the article, and again this morning after I saw the revision. I've yet to receive a response. If you'd like to join me in writing, here's his email: public@nytimes.com.