In Part II of our examination of poor Frank Rich, whose journalistic candor and value, as was said yesterday, is neither frank (he conceals things) nor rich, let's begin with this quote from his essay of June 12 published in the New York Times:
"In the most recent example, all the president's men slimed and intimidated Newsweek by accusing it of being an accessory to 17 deaths for its errant Koran story; led by Scott McClellan, they said it was unthinkable that any American guard could be disrespectful of Islam's holy book. These neo-Colsons easily drowned out Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, both of whom said that the riots that led to the 17 deaths were unrelated to Newsweek. Then came the piéce de résistance of Nixon mimicry: a Pentagon report certifying desecrations of the Koran by American guards was released two weeks after the Newsweek imbroglio, at 7:15 p.m. on a Friday, to assure it would miss the evening newscasts and be buried in the Memorial Day weekend's little-read papers.
First, a timeline. Rich claims the report about "desecrations of the Koran" was released on Friday, May 27, at 7:15 p.m., the beginning of the Memorial Day weekend. The report, dubbed the "Hood Report", was actually released on Friday, June 3. Thus, the report was never "buried in the Memorial Day weekend's little-read papers." Moreover, even if we grant that a Friday night release is somehow indicative of truth repression, as Rich insinuates, there are two facts to consider. For example, Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, director of Guantánamo Bay's detention center where abuses of the Koran allegedy occurred, held a considerably detailed press conference on May 26, the Thursday before Memorial Day. And on Wednesday, May 25, the ACLU released FBI documents apparently detailing allegations made by Gitmo detainees of said abuses.
OK. So Hood's press conference was only an "interim report", and he refused to give details about alleged mishandlings. But Rich is both wrong and deceptive. Contrary to Rich's reportage (which is ironic since his piece is largely about integrity in reporting), there was considerable transparency to the whole process; plenty of time for the press to inquire and study; and plenty of time during the news-cycle for people to read about Guantánamo. There was no Memorial Day burial of the lead; just the typical celebrations of the sacrifices of the buried dead. Besides, does Rich think the Pentagon would be so stupid as to release something that might sully the military's image on the eve of Memorial Day?
Also, it is important to note that Rich claims the Pentagon report certifies that the Koran was "desecrated." Here's what CNN.com wrote about the report's contents:
"[T]he report did find four confirmed incidents in which U.S. personnel at the base mishandled the Quran, including guards kicking a detainee's Quran; a guard's urine "splashed" a detainee and his holy book after coming through an air vent; and guards got in a water balloon fight that resulted in two detainees' Qurans getting wet."
To Rich, this all adds up to admissions of desecrating something wildly holy.
Alas, there is more. Check out this May 17, 2005 exchange during a White House press briefing between a reporter and Scott McClellan, White House press secretary:
"Q: Back on Newsweek. Richard Myers, last Thursday -- I'm going to read you a quote from him. He said, "It's a judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran." He said it was "more tied up in the political process and reconciliation that President Karzai and his cabinet were conducting." And he said that that was from an after-action report he got that day.
So what has changed between last Thursday and today, five days later, to make you now think that those -- that that violence was a result of Newsweek?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, clearly, the report was used to incite violence by people who oppose the United States and want to mischaracterize the values and the views of the United States of America. The protests may have been pre-staged by those who oppose the United States and who may be opposed to moving forward on freedom and democracy in the region, but the images that we have seen across our television screens over the last few days clearly show that this report was used to incite violence. People lost their lives --
Q: But may I just follow up, please? He didn't say "protest," he said -- he used the word very specifically, "violence." He said the violence, as far as they know from their people on the ground -- which is something that you always say you respect wholeheartedly -- it was not because of Newsweek.
MR. McCLELLAN: Dana, I guess I'm not looking at it the same way as you do, and I think the Department of Defense has spoken to this issue over the last few days. But the facts are very clear that this report was used in the region by people opposed to the United States to incite violence and to portray a very negative image of the United States, one that runs contrary to everything that we value and believe, and it has done some serious damage to our image.
Q: You don't think there's any way that perhaps you're looking at it a little bit differently, now that you understand that the Newsweek report is false?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you can go look at just about every news report that has covered this and they have pointed out that this report, itself, helped spark some violence in the region."
Is McClellan right when he says "just about every news report" suggests that violence was indeed incited? Here's what CNN.com reported on Monday, June 6:
"The investigation was prompted after a Newsweek article citing unnamed sources made such a claim -- prompting violent protests in Afghanistan and other parts of the Muslim world that left more than a dozen people dead." (For more details, go here.)
I'll grant that the second CNN.com link reports on protests throughout the Muslim community that followed Brig. Gen. Hood's admission that though no Korans had been flushed down toilets, there were five instances in which the Koran had been mishandled. But that raises an important question. If a general's admission that Korans were not desecrated but only mishandled sparks protests the world over, how much more a Newsweek article that suggests America treated the Koran like feces? Moreover, as of last week, CNN.com is not retracting its own reportage that "more than a dozen" died as a result of Newsweek's article. Or so I find no such evidence.
I don't think it can be argued that the Newsweek article did not and does not have a deleterious effect on America's standing in the world. And it is reporting like Frank Rich's that serves the enemy well. Someone died because of Newsweek's carelessness, and the press in general does not want to face the deadly consequences reckless journalism can inflame.
And inflame is what Frank Rich is intending to do, with impunity, it seems. For he is attempting to generate outrage among "the people" against our President and Defense Department, and even against Chuck Colson once again (and the "neo-Colsons" he apparently spawned). But Rich is not using truth to inflame. He is using allegations, insinuations, and downright misinformation.
It's a true poverty that leads a man to such ends.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: New York Times, Frank Rich
No comments:
Post a Comment