Tuesday, April 15, 2008

New York Times Responds to Readers About WSIA Blackout

New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt:

Dear Reader,

Thank you for writing about the Winter Soldier event in Maryland last month and its lack of coverage by the Times.

My assistant checked with various editors at the Times to see if there was any discussion about covering the Winter Soldier meeting. The editor in the Washington bureau who oversees national security coverage said he had not been aware of the group or its meeting. The Times normally has three Pentagon reporters. The meeting fell within their area of coverage, and one of them probably would have been assigned had editors chosen to staff the event. But one is on book leave, one was traveling with the secretary of defense, and one was in Iraq covering the war. The Times also did not cover an announcement the following day by Vets for Freedom, a group supporting the war and claiming more than 13 times the membership of Iraq Veterans Against the War, the group which organized Winter Soldier.

One group was emphasizing what it charged were war crimes, war profiteering and war mismanagement. The other group was protesting what it charged was the failure of the media to report more fully on signs of progress in Iraq, such as rebuilt schools and infrastructure.

News organizations like the Times, with its own substantial investment in independent reporting from Iraq tend to prefer their own on-scene accounts of the war, rather than relying on charges and counter-charges at home by organizations with strongly held political viewpoints about the war.

Sincerely,
Clark Hoyt
****

The Times' D.C. bureau editor's claim to have not heard of the hearings is remarkable, given that the AP newswire carried a story on the hearings, and IVAW has confirmed to FAIR that the D.C. bureau had been sent three separate rounds of different IVAW press releases. In addition, at least 150 Times staffers were sent press releases about Winter Soldier by the Institute for Public Accuracy, a group that encourages inclusion of overlooked facts and progressive perspectives in media coverage. Given that media organizations operating on a small fraction of the Times' budget were aware of and able to find the resources to cover these hearings, the Times' D.C. bureau's plea to ignorance about the hearings is all the more disappointing.

Meanwhile, Hoyt's justification of the Times failure to cover Winter Soldier on the grounds that they also did not cover "an announcement the following day by Vets for Freedom, a group supporting the war and claiming more than 13 times the membership of Iraq Veterans Against the War, the group which organized Winter Soldier," draws a far-fetched parallel between a group presenting eyewitness testimony about atrocities in Iraq and a group releasing a press release about media bias. (As a group that often puts out press releases about media bias that don't get covered by the Times, the comparison strikes us as rather absurd.) Further, the size of IVAW and Vets for Freedom are not directly comparable, as IVAW is a group of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, whereas anyone can sign up on the Vets for Freedom website, which stipulates that "non-veterans can also be members of Vets for Freedom."

Hoyt's claim that "news organizations like the Times, with its own substantial investment in independent reporting from Iraq, tend to prefer their own on-scene accounts of the war" is akin to asserting that reporters on the police beat prefer to write about crimes they have seen themselves rather than talking to eyewitnesses. Given that Times reporters, like all Western journalists in Iraq, have great difficulty travelling freely outside the Green Zone, it is hard to imagine that they could provide a full and accurate picture of the war without interviewing people who have participated in it. And of course the paper does often interview U.S. military personnel about what they've seen, though when they are whistleblowers trying to call attention to what they describe as "the human consequences of failed policy," the Times suddenly has much less interest in what they have to say.

The New York Times' decision to assign one of its two available correspondents to tour with the Secretary of Defense instead of hearing the first-hand accounts of the Winter Soldiers demonstrates a very strange notion of "independent reporting."

fair.org
4/8/08

2 comments:

truth seeker said...

Hey Adam! Yes, it's ridiculous that Winter Soldier wasn't covered by the Times, and the editor's reasoning is pitiful. The event was newsworthy plain and simple. And the comparison between both veterans' groups is irrelevant- both events should be considered news.
It doesn't surprise me but it is disappointing. I live in Pennsylvania and I checked my local paper at the time hoping to see even a mention- but not a word about the testimonies before the event or after.
The mainstream media in general makes it easy for people to live with their heads in the sand- but it's no excuse. And for an editor to convey such non-interest because of the paper's preference for 'on-scene accounts' from their reporters, well I don't know about the Times, but how many on-scene reports do we actually get?! Unless the members of the general public take a vested interest, typical media would make it seem that we aren't even at war.
Anyway, enough of my venting...take care.
Susan

Latrice said...

Like truth seeker Susan said, that is ridiculous. Also ridiculous is that The Nation wrote nothing on it until Sunday with one brief blog post. Also ridiculous was that WBAI thought it was more important to air their bad dee jay music programs on Saturday than Winter Soldier. Also ridiculous was all our friends on the "left" who ignored this. IVAW streamed it. Thanks are in order for Aaron Glantz and Aimee Allison who hosted the live coverage KPFA at least carried every day when others thought they had done their job with just Friday.