As we recently observed in this column, Democrats can win back the presidency if (a) the news on Iraq and the economy is bad or (b) if the news on Iraq and the economy is good, as long as the public thinks the news is bad. Persuading the public to think the news is bad is something the New York Times seems to be going out of its way to do – not just in its editorial pages, but in its news pages. Here’s how.
The Reuters newswire service recently reported several very positive government reports on the economy. According to the Labor Department, the number of Americans filing initial jobless claims fell for the second week in a row to its lowest level since February. The Federal Reserve reported that production increased by a healthy .4 percent, its fastest pace since March. And the Commerce Department reported that the core inflation rate, which strips out volatile food and energy costs, rose only .1 percent in September. Three positive reports from three different sources.
In “Data Show U.S. Economy Picking Up Steam” (Oct. 16, 2003), Reuters wrote the following lead to summarize the parade of good news:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. economic recovery is picking up steam, according to government reports on Thursday, indicating the job market is improving and the troubled factory sector is turning around.
How did the New York Times treat the news the next day in the “newspaper of record”? All three reports – including the very positive news on inflation – were buried deep in the Times’ business section in a single article having the foreboding headline: “Consumer Price Index Up 0.3 percent, Mostly Because of Gasoline” (Oct. 17, 2003). The story was also written by the Associated Press. The Times apparently preferred the staid AP version over the positive Reuters coverage, and apparently didn’t think the news warranted the assignment of its own reporters to cover the story. A Reuter’s story entitled “Fed’s Stern Sees Jobs Picking Up” (Oct. 16, 2003) received no coverage in the Times.
Burying good news on the economy in a story hidden away in the business section is one means of helping Democrats get elected. The sin of omission is another. But the Times employed another time-honored propaganda technique when it undermined some recent good news from Iraq.
Last week, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans was in Iraq to announce the introduction of a new Iraqi currency, one which replaced the bills which bore the likeness of the country’s former dictator Saddam Hussein. The new currency had been favorably received by the Iraqi people, and its introduction into general circulation has gone smoothly. It was a remarkable achievement, requiring six months of preparation and an airlift of almost 6 million pounds of new currency notes into Iraq on Boeing 747s.
A straight unbiased lead sentence for this story could have been written this way:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 15 – Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans was in Baghdad today to announce the new Iraqi diner, currency notes to be introduced into circulation over the next three months, and an important step toward ending the legacy of Saddam Hussein, whose face had decorated Iraq’s old currency.
The above lead would have provided the basic elements of a proper lead sentence – the Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How – without a tinge of bias. An unbiased headline to such a story might have been, “U.S. Commerce Chief Helps Iraqis Introduce New Currency.”
Readers of my book “Journalistic Fraud” will be familiar with the various techniques the Times uses to slant each of the basic elements of a news story to further the paper’s political and ideological objectives. In this case, the goal was to undermine the Commerce Secretary’s positive message. To that end, the Times crafted the following lead sentence (in “Commerce Chief Says Iraq Violence Should Not Discourage Investors,” Oct. 16, 2003):
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 15 – At a heavily guarded warehouse at the Baghdad airport, which ordinary Iraqis cannot enter without American permission, Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans said on Wednesday that violence in Iraq is isolated and that foreign investors should seize opportunities here.
Notice, first, that there’s nothing in the lead sentence regarding the good news, the introduction of the new Iraqi currency. Notice that the headline of the article also fails to refer to the good news.
Finally, recall the basic elements of a news story: the who, what, when, where, why, and how (and trust me for a moment, that the Times has become expert in manipulating each of these elements). Now, notice how the lead sentence opens with the “where” of the story, which is usually the story’s most insignificant fact: “At a heavily guarded warehouse at the Baghdad airport, which ordinary Iraqi’s cannot enter without American permission …”
The only possible reason why this fact figured prominently in the first sentence of the article was to undermine one of the messages that Secretary Evans was trying to make: that the economy of Iraq is getting on track (with a new currency and a new central bank), that Iraqi oil is pumping at greater than pre-war levels, and that the violence (caused mainly by foreign terrorists) had been confined to specific areas of the country. As a result, significant progress has been made in building a foundation for foreign investment in Iraq.
But notice how the “where” was used to undermine the claim that the violence in Iraq was isolated. If the very warehouse Secretary Evans used to hold his press conference had to be so heavily guarded that even ordinary Iraqis were not permitted entry, how could the violence be isolated? That is precisely what the Times wanted the readers to ask themselves before reading the positive news about the currency introduction and progress on the Iraqi economy. In other words, by manipulating the “where” of the story, the Times suggested to its readers that Secretary Evans was being disingenuous about his claim of isolated violence.
Now for the clincher: Why do you think Secretary Evans held his news conference in a heavily guarded warehouse? Nowhere in the article is there any suggestion of a possible reason for the high security at the warehouse. However, if you take a look at the photograph accompanying the article, you will plainly see that Secretary Evans was sitting in front of several hundred crates of currency. The reporter conveniently omitted from the story the fact that the warehouse was heavily guarded and no ordinary Iraqis were permitted entry because nearly a billion dollars in cash was being stored there!
This manipulation of public opinion in a “straight” news story was inexcusable. If you were reading that article on the Internet, with no photograph that might explain the reason for the high security, it would be impossible for a reader to recognize the manipulation.
Sipping a hot cup of coffee in a popular Greenwich Village coffeehouse, I briefly turned my attention away from the newspaper to gaze out at the busy New York street. Feeling more disbelief at what I had just read than anger, I wondered how little the editors of the New York Times must think of its readers if it really believes that such cheap shots against the Bush administration will go unnoticed. How much longer will this go on before the paper’s readers realize they are being manipulated by one of history’s great propaganda machines?
History has judged harshly those who have stood silent in the face of a continual barrage of falsehoods. It should be the responsibility of every citizen to learn how to recognize propaganda masquerading as news, teach their children how to recognize it, and let their fellow citizens know the truth. Friends don’t let friends be lied to.
It shouldn’t have to be this way, but as the Times steps up its propaganda efforts, we must step up our efforts to stop it.
Biden’s criminal son is the 3rd turkey pardoned
Mychal Massie