Reading The Pictures: NYT Playing Fast And Noose With Iraq Anniversary
Quicker than you can say "Judith Miller," the NYT seems to have suffered a neocon-inspired fugue state in its commemoration of the fifth anniversary of the Iraqi invasion.
With the passage of time, you would think there might have been a few hard-and-fast lessons learned about what did and didn't happen relative to the administration's propaganda war-within-a-war. One of those central facts has to do with the subsequent discovery that the Iraqi's did not fill Firdos Square en masse, and did not either conceive or instigate the pulling down of Saddam's statue, and that anyone publishing tightly-focused pictures of jubilant Iraqi's appearing to agitate for the statue's removal (when the Square was cordoned off and Marine PSY OPS were managing the scene) is perpetuating a myth.
But then, how are we to explain the image above and the following caption which appeared yesterday on the blog of the NYT Baghdad bureau? It read:
Iraqis chanted as they helped put a noose around the neck of a statue of Saddam Hussein on April 9, 2003 in Baghdad.
Of course technically, the caption is not inaccurate. It is just misleading, especially with reports that the military scared up the crowd and that certain participants in the vicinity were alleged to be associates of Ahmed Chalabi. To be as fair and accurate as possible, I must add that the body of the post consists of NYT reporter Stephen Farrell's recollections of that day, having covered the fall of Baghdad for The Times of London. As regards the statue, Farrell writes:
At 3:10 p.m. four Marine M1 Abrams battle tanks arrived near Fatah (Conquest) Square. They were heading for Firdos (Paradise) Square less than a mile ahead, where, two hours later, the marines would tear down a statue of Mr. Hussein before the world's television cameras.
So, Farrell's written account -- the "what" being the tearing down of the stature, the "who" being the marines, and the "why" having to do with playing to the cameras -- is primarily accurate. So, that being the case, and given the fact a picture is worth a whole lot more words, the question is: why does the picture and caption insist on suggesting an alternate, and completely discredited reality?
Maintaining their anniversary slant, you can check out more Times "face-saving coverage" on this companion post.
Baghdad, April 9, 2003: Fear, Euphoria and Hints of Things to Come (NYT/Baghdad Bureau blog)
Army Stage-Managed Fall of Hussein Statue (LA Times Via CommonDreams)
The photographs tell the story... (Information Clearing House)
(image: James Hill for The New York Times. Baghdad, April 9, 2003. nytimes.com)
Read more HuffPost coverage and reaction to the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
New York Times motto: "All the Noose That's Fit to Print"
It looks like a number of others see the NYT as a failing newspaper which is in a very steep & rapid spiral to oblivion. The NYT hasn't been a newspaper of record for years. I wonder if those who write articles on the NYT when it ceases publication will mention that the NYT once was considered to be America's only newspaper of record.
Surely by now every reader of the HuffPost knows enough not to take the NYT seriously. Is it really necessary to belabor the point?
Mark your calendars. Frontline on PBS March 19, 9 PM
http://www
I ended 25 years of reading the NYT when they hired Bill Kristol and I haven't looked back. No web articles either. I used to read it with the understanding that I also must read a variety of other sources in order to get a better understanding of the situation, a la Chomsky. However, Kristol is simply too much, especially now that the NYT is repeating lies that originate in Newsmax. I just read that while the mainstream media is salivating over this ridiculous Obama/Wright non-story, only 3% of the news coverage in February was about the war in Iraq. Disgusting. I have found a solution, however: I just don't watch ANY news at all. It seems to have really denigrated in the past year and I can no longer tolerate the anger that it generates. It's obvious to me that the mainstream media wants McCain, which explains the pass they have ALL given him on the whole Hagee endorsement. Imagine if Obama only released a statement that he doesn't agree with every statement that Wright made. The mainstream media = crooks and liars, all of them. Good riddance.
Oh give me a break. When are people going to accept the NYT for what it is? A neocon mouthpiece. Of course some of my friends will say that they give thorough coverage of a story. Yes, they do but often it is so one-sided it makes you sick.
The elephant in the NYT is their favorable coverage of anything that could impact Israeli interests. There will be lots of negatives about Iran, terrorists, Tom Friedman (who never apologized for his support for Iraq occupation), Bill Kristol and today's Judith Miller, now with the Manhattan Institute (need I say more), moment.
Stop reading it and do not listen to any quotes from it. With the exception of Paul Krugman, who could easily get a more prestigious job, they are useless.
It's a sad statement of the declining status of the NYT. Judith Miller. Imitating Fox with a "fair and balanced" excuse for hiring Bill Kristol and then not even fact-checking him. They've become a propaganda tool and have given up on true journalism - where you don't just repeat what politicians (or anyone say) you offer researched analysis and call it a distortion or a lie when it is. Newspapers were supposed to be about helping people wade through the BS and find the truth. Now they're just sensationalists scraping up bucks for their shareholders.
Well she was sleeping with Bill Keller president of the NY Times.
Do you still read NYT?
Thats the beauty of a wide angled lens.
It makes it seems like there are thousands of Iraqi chanting Saddam's demise when really, it about 60 to 100 people.
at least they know what they're doing.
The NY Times is dead to me. It has been deleted from my bookmarks, I no longer pay for newstand issues, and might only catch the occasional article if I accidentally click on a link in a news aggregator.
The NYT is neocon rag in lefty drag, think Rudy as Judy, blonde wig and nail polish....
HuffPost's Pick
I remember watching CNN (one of the last times I watched that dreadful channel) and seeing that they'd fixed their cameras on the statue and chattered for hours about how dramatic and historic it would be if the statue were toppled. The climax, more of a lumbering collapse than a toppling, was a contrived scene, totally inauthentic, manufactured for the sake of the loathsome press and to support the White House's bogus claims that Iraqis were enraptured at the arrival of the American military.
HuffPost's Pick
The is good evidence that this was a stage managed event In reporting for my book, True Lies, I talked w/ an AP at a news network, for instance, who was working on the desk when this footage came in. She told me she complained to her bosses that they were editing out the wide shots which showed how empty the square was and was told to keep quiet, that she didn't understand what made good TV. But there is a flipside to this story. And that is Baghdad was full of Iraqis celebrating the fall of Saddam five years ago today. In my own reporting there in Oct. 2003 (for the Showtime doc, BattleGround), my partner and I found that most Iraqis (including many Sunnis) were happy to be out from under the yoke of the Saddam regime. This isn't justifying the invasion, which was, imho, illegal. The fact remains that scenes like this were common across Iraq. But as then-al Jazeera producer May Ying-Welsh pointed out to us in our film, the people were yelling "America, Yes, America, Yes." And then they added, "When are you going to turn our water back on? When are you going to turn our electricity back on?"
The NYT is not what it used to be, it is living on its past reputation
that whole incident was staged/ instigated by US Military.
Just like the Jessica Lynch story and bless her heart for telling the truth. The used (or tried to) use her like a pawn.
Loading comments…
Posted March 19, 2008 | 06:00 AM (EST)