New York Times Falsifies Obama-Netanyahu Meeting [UPDATED]

Original Post Updated At the Bottom

The New York Times assigned to the story a national correspondent, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, whose political perceptions are bland and whose innocence about Israeli-American relations could be relied on. At the newspaper of record, a thing like that does not happen by accident. They took the most anxiously awaited meeting with a foreign leader of President Obama's term thus far, and buried it on page 12. The coverage of a major event, which the same newspaper had greeted only the day before by running an oversize attack-Iran op-ed by Jeffrey Goldberg, has officially now shrunk to the scale of a smaller op-ed.

What is more disturbing and far more consequential is that the Times made this meeting into a story about Iran. They read into Obama's careful and measured remarks exactly the hostile intention toward Iran and the explicit deadline for results from his negotiations with Iran that Obama had taken great pains to avoid stating. Obama's relevant remark was this:

My expectation would be that if we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there's a good faith effort to resolve differences. That doesn't mean every issue would be resolved by that point, but it does mean that we'll probably be able to gauge and do a reassessment by the end of the year of this approach.

"Shortly after," "fairly good sense," "the right direction," "good faith effort," "probably," "by the end of the year." This was a language chosen deliberately to cool the fever of Netanyahu and his far-right War Coalition in Israel. But Stolberg, writing for the Times, converts these hedged and vague suggestions into a revelation that Obama for the first time seemed "willing to set even a general timetable for progress in talks with Iran."

In fact, as any reader of the transcript may judge, President Obama sounded a more urgent note about the progress Israel ought to make in yielding what it long has promised to the Palestinian people. Palestine was the proper name that dominated Obama's side of the news conference. In the Times story, by contrast, the word Iran occurs three times before the first mention of "Palestinians." Iran is mentioned twice more before the words West Bank are uttered once.

Regarding the necessity of a Palestinian state, President Obama was explicit:

We have seen progress stalled on this front, and I suggested to the Prime Minister that he has an historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure.

And when Netanyahu said the Israeli attitude toward Palestine would completely depend on the details of progress toward securing Iran against the acquisition of a single nuclear weapon, Obama replied that his view was almost the reverse. In a leader as averse as Barack Obama to the slightest public hint of personal conflict, this was a critical moment in the exchange; how far, a reporter asked Obama, did he assent to the Netanyahu concept of "linkage" -- the idea that first the U.S. must deal with Iran, and a more obliging Israeli approach to Palestine will surely follow. Obama answered:

I recognize Israel's legitimate concerns about the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon when they have a president who has in the past said that Israel should not exist. That would give any leader of any country pause. Having said that, if there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians -- between the Palestinians and the Israelis -- then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat.

This was a reluctantly formulated but direct and inescapable inversion of the Netanyahu doctrine on linkage. Not a trace of it appears in the Times account.

Finally, Gaza was much in President Obama's mind and on his conscience at this meeting; so much so that he broke decorum and stepped out of his way to mention it:

The fact is, is that if the people of Gaza have no hope, if they can't even get clean water at this point, if the border closures are so tight that it is impossible for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place, then that is not going to be a recipe for Israel's long-term security or a constructive peace track to move forward.

And yet not a word from Stolberg and the Times about these words of Obama's on Gaza. Nor was any analytic piece offered as a supplement -- the usual procedure in assessing an event of this importance.

To sum up, what happened at the meeting can be judged plainly enough by the news conference that followed. Binyamin Netanyahu tried to make it all about Iran. Obama declined, and spoke again and again about the importance of peace in the entire region, and the crucial role that Israel would have to play by freezing the West Bank settlements and negotiating in good faith to achieve a Palestinian state.

Let us end where we began, with Barack Obama on the good of peaceable relations with Iran, and the New York Times on the importance of thinking such relations are close to impossible.

President Obama: "You know, I don't want to set an artificial deadline."

Now the Times headline: "Obama Tells Netanyahu He Has a Timetable on Iran." And the Times front-page teaser for their A12 story: "Obama's Iran Timetable."

The decision-makers at the New York Times are acting again as if their readers had no other means of checking the facts they report. They are saying the thing that is not, without remembering that the record which refutes them has become easily and quickly available. A great newspaper is dying. And on the subject of Israel, it is doing its best to earn its death-warrant.

UPDATE BELOW

A commenter on this column pointed out that there was an analytic companion to the Stolberg report, after all. It is a web-only piece, dated May 19, written by David Sanger.

Sanger begins:

WASHINGTON -- Now that President Obama has established what he called a "clear timetable" for Iran to halt its nuclear program--progress must be made by the end of the year, he declared on Monday--both American and Israeli officials are beginning to talk about how to accomplish that goal.

A one-sentence paragraph, and all business. Is the Times trying once again to commandeer public opinion for U.S. or Israeli military action against a large country in the Middle East? Improbable as it may sound, it is becoming hard to escape that conclusion. Certainly, the reader of Sanger's piece is encouraged to draw the same inference as the reader of Stolberg's report: namely that the central subject between Netanyahu and Obama on Monday was the laying out of a timetable against Iran; and that Obama was friendly, compliant, and with-the-program (if vague).

Symptomatic excerpts from Sanger:

"So now begins Mr. Obama's diplomatic sprint." (The Times holds a stopwatch. And the title of the article reinforces the pressure: "After Israeli Visit, a Diplomatic Sprint on Iran").

One of "Obama's strategists" is quoted as saying: "the Israelis, of course, are racing to come up with a convincing military alternative that could plausibly set back the Iranian program." A military alternative to what? Alternative to negotiations, or to some other, American, military action? Sanger withholds comment, only noting: "Neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Netanyahu made any reference on Monday to Israel's regular allusions to those alternatives. This was, after all, a first meeting."

Notice the public assumption by Sanger--contradicted by the tenor and details of the news conference itself--that Obama has already agreed to pay respectful attention to Israel's military ideas. Obama's reluctance to say so aloud is taken to exhibit merely the shyness of a new leader on a "first meeting."

Again: "Mr. Obama's strategy is based on a giant gamble: That after the Iranian elections on June 12, the way will be clear to convince the Iranians that it is in their long-term interest to strike a deal." How gigantic is the gamble, in fact? That depends on whether you set greater store by the Israeli or the American estimate of Iran's progress toward a weapon. It is a gigantic gamble only on the Israeli view. Evidently, Sanger takes on trust the accuracy of that view.

This analytic piece concludes with two paragraphs of Israeli doubts about any dealings at all with Iran, and Israeli doubts about Obama. There is a rushed, single paragraph in the middle, on Palestine. No second analytic piece about Palestine as a subject of Monday's news conference has yet been posted at the New York Times on-line.

The Times story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and the Times analysis by David Sanger both tell the same story. It says that Iran is the major business between the U.S. and Israel in the coming year. The story is false, as an impartial viewer or reader of Monday's news conference will recognize. The giant gamble of the Times is that by repeating the story they can shape events and help to make it true. This double distortion was policy, not accident.

Comments

[GKJames]

This suggests that an in-depth look at how a news event is transformed into a news article would be interesting. Like watching how they make chocolate or sausages. It would be fascinating to be see the correspondent's notes, the drafts of her article, the deliberations with her editor, and the final product. The result might be depressing, but at least we'd KNOW how the "news" is manipulated, not through outright lies, but through elisions, subtle and not.

[mpflinn]

Great idea. Similarly, I complained to CNN about their coverage of the Notre Dame commencement address of President Obama. First comments were not about the core content of the speech which addessed the quintessentially American ability to honor diversity and build our country on areas where we can find common ground. CNN commented immediately about the contestation and cut to the protestors outside.

If our media so often can only report (and stir up) controversy without accurate and serious commentary on the reality to be reported, no wonder newspapers and cable are being replaced by the internet. And our country becomes more polarized.

[alexa07]

We need a constant analysis of a news event vs. how it is portrayed, characterized, quite possibly perverted into something entirely different (as David describes so well about the mtg. between Obama & Mr. N) by the NYT & others, esp. the TV networks. We also need a few whistle blowers from within to describe the process of turning the news event into the packaged "sausage," suitable for public consumption. More than ever, I am finding great sources for news outside the traditional media. The more real news I find on the outside, it becomes even more pathetic how the old ways seem stunted & contrived.

[Adam Smith]

The NYT is still at it today with a byline piece by David E. Sanger that starts out:

"WASHINGTON — Now that President Obama has established what he called a “clear timetable” for Iran to halt its nuclear program — progress must be made by the end of the year, he declared on Monday — both American and Israeli officials are beginning to talk about how to accomplish that goal."

This narrative is evidently editorial policy, not the view of an individual reporter.

[themodernleader]

We must not forget that from the chance of birth as Americans we are sworn to support and defend the Constitution. Members of every ethnic group and their organizations, must remember that allegiance to the Republic is first and unconditional. To act otherwise is a mark of betrayal of the foundation of our country.
If this country fails, the would-be dictators who pick up the pieces will gain power through scapegoating and punishing the guilty and innocent alike. There are selfish as well as patriotic reasons for making our system perform and thrive.

[KKojei]

Let's correct a few things about your comments here: First you can not swear an infant to anything. So the idea of sworn from birth is fallacious. Secondly, allegiance to the Republic is not unconditional. That statement in itself carries the seed of despotism and dictatorial mentality. Allegiance to any Republic should always be contingent upon these simple values:

1. The Republic upholds the rights of common humanity-man, woman or child-against all efforts to interfere with the freedom to choose personal destiny and prepare to do so via accessible and ethical educational opportunities

2. The Republic protects the public from criminal behavior of both rich and poor whether corporate or political.

3. The Republic protects the public from the unethical practices of social and scientific engineers, including all such as can be described as administrators of health and wellness

4. The Republic holds individuals responsible for their actions on all levels including that pertaining to family and community.

In the 21st century, dictactors come in many forms. Not all are government officials. Drug cartels become dictators. Religious extremists become dictators. Professional associations [Like the AMA and related organizations] become dictators.

If this country fails, it will be because Americans refused to see the true dictators among us and dry up their ability to negatively affect the quality of our lives. My motto: Stop making your enemy rich!!!!

[USCitizenforever]

#4..".The Republic holds the individuals resonsible for their actions on all levels".....


When will this ever happen?

[courtb]

Professor Bromwich, I am not going to respond on the majority of your article because it seems well laid out and thought out to me, and as I rarely read the NY Times, I am not qualified to agree or disagree on the state of the newspaper (although the press in general is appalling in this country).

I did, however, read the link to Jeffery Golderg's op-ed piece and am troubled by your assertion that it is an "oversize attack-Iran op-ed". I read the piece, prepared to be disappointed by Goldberg, whose book I have read and appreciated. But the article, to me at least (a progressive Zionist who doesn't believe in attacking Iran) he did little more than explain more about Netanyahu, what has shaped him, what he is thinking, etc. He never once advocates attacking Iran physically.

Is it an attack piece simply because Goldberg does not vocally condemn the Israeli view that an attack might be the only way to stop a nuclear Iran? And if so, that puts us on a disturbing path that Bush and Co. seemed to enjoy so much: if you aren't with us (in this case, those loudly vocal against attacking Iran) then you are against us...

[gadfly55]

Thank you, David, because this bias must be exposed, as indeed the bias has endured with such devastating consequences for all concerned. The world will determine their regard for Obama on this issue. Read The Economist leader this week. The Americans must now apply relentless pressure on Israel to resolve this conflict on terms previously agreed, a cessation of settlements and a two-state solution with viable means for stability, with Jerusalem an international city.

[arvay]

This is nothing new for the Times, which blithely led public opinion to follow Bush's lies about iraq.

Decades ago, its correspondent Walter Duranty covered up Stalin's crimes against humanity, because the Times sympathized with communism. It even suppressed reports of massacres of Jews in WWII because it didn't want to be perceived as "too Jewish."

The core problem is that the Times seems to have always believed it's job is to educate the be-nighted masses, rather than informing them and letting them draw their own conclusions. Time and time again, it's distorted facts to boster it's "lessons."

Intellectual arrogance paired with intellectual dishonesty.

The world will lose little if this "icon" disappears, contrary to all the shrieking. Despite some real journalism and good writing that gets in from time to time, the Times simply can't be trusted. It always has and always will have its own agendas.

There are numerous, alternate sources information. We can reach our own conclusions, apply our own tests of veracity, think clearly without this pretentious and ultimately unreliable "institution."

[Forest]

The NYTimes continues to follow in the steps of Judith Miller as if its readers were too thin on reality
to identify the twists of truth which ill define the actual dialog from the critical Obama-Netanyahu meeting.

[VenisejbA]

Most excellent article David Bromwich. The worst thing which could have happened with Israel was to allow the far right-wing extremist, Benjamin Netanyahu, to be re-elected. The most retrograde step they could have taken.

Re Your comment on the death of the New York Times, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they have a great record for courageous journalism. Is the owner a far right-wing person. If you say the owner is Rupert Murdoch I'm would not be about to faint. Merely sorry for the newspaper.

[USCitizenforever]

Obviously the people of Israel feel differently than you do....seeing as BEBE was elected by them...

[303]

Bibi the Flea vs . Barack The Giant.
Mmmmm.
Wonder who will prevail?

Bibi represents LESS than 30% of Less than 4 Million non-Arab Israelis.

Obama represents 60-65% of over 300 MILLION Americans, PLUS

Huge majorities of the remaining Free World -- and, over ONE BILLION Moderate Muslims.

Me thinks Litte Bibi doth protest too much!

[capt ayhab]

Not to mention the huge popularity among the entire world including from every facit of life.
Bibi is the same PM who had set the peace condition for war with Iraq. And see where that took us.

[bluevillage]

I, too, was shocked to read the article after having heard the whole press conference, especially the part about the timetable, which was clearly the opposite of what Obama had said. What's happening to the Times? Most of their articles nowadays start with some cutesy lead sentence that sends my opinion of the author plummeting.

[trubluelefty]

Sad there are only about 80 comments on this outstanding article. I have lived and dreamed of a day that I would hear a US President say what President Obama just did and the coverage of it makes me want to weep. Thanks to Huff Po for putting it on the front page.

[ezvu]

There is lot of politics out there. Today I checked CNN main page and there is no mention of credit card bill on senate nor of new fuel standards. These events apparantly less important than 'American Idol' blog: Mama didn't raise no fool " 4th most importnat news on CNN.

Lets hope major media understand their responsiblities and that in this age of internet they can no longer hide the news.

[vernonbc]

Don't hold your breath waiting for CNN to report clearly and fairly on the news of the day. If the Republicans haven't released a right wing talking point about the issue, it won't be covered.

[JISantiago]

Everyone, at least this one, who listned to the Obama-Netanyahu press conference came out with the clear impression that, though President Obama acknowledged that a nuclear Iran is a threat, not only to Israel but to the whole region and the world at large, the more pressing priority is for the talks to begin aimed at creating a two-state (Palestine and Israel) solution.

He also made it clear that such a solution will make the task of dealing with Iran, vis-a-vis nuclear arms production, much easier as Iran will be isolated on that issue. So, for the NYT to suggest that Obama sets timetable for Iran is very misleading and mischievious.

President Obama made it clear that Israel must stop building Jewish settlement on occupied West Bank. Refrain from the kind of military action it took against the people of Gaza and end the inhumane actions in the aftermath of that military campaign. This includes the denial for the people of Gaza their urgent needs of humanitarian and reconstruction aid. In other words, he told Netanyahu in no uncertain terms that Israel has to reverse course and start acting responsibly.

On the other hand, he also had a word of warning for the Palestinians. They have to stop their indiscriminate and reprehensible rocket attacks on the Israeli civilians.

It is very difficult to believe a reputable media like the NYT didn't get it right on such a major news event.

[OldFreddie]

I agree with most of your post except describing the NYT as "reputable". They haven't been considered a "reputable" media outlet in a long time. Good riddance to those who make a mockery of journalism, what used to be considered an honorable profession.

[VenisejbA]

I have a feeling (Robert Fisk) may have criticized New York Times for being gutless. I'm not saying this to be contentious. Merely that a world famous reporter and writer about the Middle East has expressed a similar opinion to the one expressed by you.

Also; why is it that Israel gets away with denouncing even the most minor criminal act of a Palestinian as being a terrorist? Whereas when an group of Israelis are caught beating the sh-t out of Palestinians and otherwise being horrible. The government declares the perpetrators have been mentally distressed, unbalanced, a problem with attitude, it was just a terrible mistake. BUT WHY OH WHY DO THEY NOT CALL THESE RENEGADES TERRORISTS?

[JISantiago]

I too used to wonder why state-sponsored terror acts do not fall into the category of terrorism. Palestinians, more often than not, are described by the western media as militants, if not terrorists. Yet the Israeli Defence Force has embraced the militant Jewish rabbis in their fold and their anti-Palestinian teachings as their psychological warfare mantra.

[docron]

Excellent article. Intelligent, cogent reporting.

As I'm certain others have posted before me, the obvious biases and an even more obvious agenda is a primary reason newspapers don't have much longer to live. Most good contemporary reporting is done by bloggers whose work is then reprinted, the next day, in the no-longer-news papers. What a waste of dead trees.

[Justtellthetruth]

Thanks Professor Bromwich,

Great story, great analysis, and sad news about the times.

NYT objectivity; RIP.