New York Times
As you know, on July 14 the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to prohibit U.S. military participation in the Saudi-UAE war in Yemen, when it passed the Davidson and Nolan amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act [NDAA].
So far, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and NPR have failed to report this news. The Los Angeles Times reported in an editorial that "the House of Representatives passed several amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act that call for greater congressional oversight on how U.S. weapons are being used in Yemen," but failed to note that the House passed two amendments that prohibit U.S. military participation in Saudi Arabia's Yemen war. Current U.S. military participation includes refueling the Saudi and UAE warplanes that are bombing Yemen.
Urge the NYT, WaPo, and NPR not to censor the news that the House has voted against U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by signing our petition at MoveOn.
Three prominent CNN journalists resigned on June 26 after CNN was forced to retract and apologize for a story linking a Trump ally to a Russian investment fund under congressional investigation. The CNN story had been based on a single anonymous source. An internal investigation by CNN management found that some standard editorial processes were not followed when the article was published.  Buzzfeed reported that CNN has now imposed strict new publishing restrictions for online articles involving Russia.
But as Glenn Greenwald noted at The Intercept, the problem is not limited to CNN:
"CNN is hardly alone when it comes to embarrassing retractions regarding Russia. Over and over, major U.S. media outlets have published claims about the Russia Threat that turned out to be completely false - always in the direction of exaggerating the threat and/or inventing incriminating links between Moscow and the Trump circle. In virtually all cases, those stories involved evidence-free assertions from anonymous sources that these media outlets uncritically treated as fact, only for it to be revealed that they were entirely false.
A declassified Joint Chiefs of Staff [JCS] report shows that in September 2002, senior officials of the Bush Administration, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Air Force General Richard Myers, and Air Force Maj. Gen. Glen Shaffer, knew that the Bush Administration's public case for war did not match U.S. intelligence knowledge.
Urge the New York Times to examine who knew the case for war was bogus and when they knew it by signing our petition at MoveOn:
Politico notes that several Iraq war architects are now advising Republican presidential candidates. Then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, whose military assistant was copied on the JCS report, is one of Jeb Bush’s foreign policy experts. John Bolton is advising Ted Cruz. Elliott Abrams and William Kristol are supporting Marco Rubio.
Senator Dick Durbin, who voted against the war, said on the Senate floor in April 2007 that as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, he had known in 2002 that U.S. intelligence knowledge did not match the Bush Administration's public case for war. “The information we had in the intelligence committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn’t believe it,” Durbin said.
On July 23, the New York Times published an op-ed by Shmuel Rosner, political editor at Tags:
On Sunday, in the course of an article about Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders attracting huge crowds in Iowa, the New York Times told us that
by Robert Naiman
The Senate Intelligence Committee recently took an important step by passing an intelligence authorization which would require for the first time - if it became law - that the Administration publicly report on civilian casualties from U.S. drone strikes.
Sarah Knuckey, Director of the Project on Extrajudicial Executions at New York University School of Law and a Special Advisor to the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, calls this provision "an important step toward improving transparency," and notes that "Various U.N. officials, foreign governments, a broad range of civil society, and many others, including former U.S. Department of State Legal Advisor Harold Koh ... have called for the publication of such basic information."
This provision could be offered as an amendment in the Senate to the National Defense Authorization Act. It could be offered in the House as an amendment on the intelligence authorization, or as a freestanding bill. But it's not likely to become law unless there's some public agitation for it (you can participate in the public agitation here.)
Earlier this week, we initiated a petition at MoveOn to Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor of the New York Times, urging that the Times put budget numbers in context.
.@nytimes, @Sulliview: Put Budget Numbers in Context
Margaret Sullivan has responded. You can read her response here:
The Times Is Working on Ways to Make Numbers-Based Stories Clearer for Readers
I've forgotten most of the Arabic I once knew. All I can remember now are a few colorful phrases, like "aktar maliki min il malik" - more royalist than the King.
Suppose that you decided that you wanted to scaremonger Iran's nuclear program. An obvious question presents itself: exactly how much should you scaremonger it? Suppose that you decided you wanted to run even with the world's top-drawer Iran nuclear program scaremongers. You might reasonably think to yourself, well, surely the world's preeminent Iran nuclear program scaremongers are Israeli government officials. If I scaremonger Iran's nuclear program like Israeli government officials, no-one's going to accuse me of being an Iran nuclear program scaremonger patzer.
So, you check the press reports to catch up on the latest in Israeli government Iran nuclear program scaremongering:
We learned in the run-up to the Iraq war that the New York Times has tremendous power to establish "truth" in the United States—and when the Times wields that power irresponsibly, the results can be catastrophic.
Last week, the media watchdog Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting documented a lack of skepticism in New York Times reporting of allegations of Syrian government use of chemical weapons.  Times reporting suggested that the U.S. government had strong evidence that Syria had used chemical weapons. But, as FAIR documented, the U.S. government was not nearly as certain as claimed by the Times' initial reports. At the same time that the Times was uncritically reporting these claims, other media were appropriately skeptical.
Urge Margaret Sullivan, the New York Times Public Editor, to examine whether the Times showed appropriate skepticism in its reporting of Western government claims about the Syrian government's alleged use of chemical weapons.
On April 18, the Times reported  that, according to unnamed diplomats, the UK and France had sent letters to the UN about "credible evidence" Syria had used chemical weapons. On April 23, the Times reported  that Israel had "evidence that the Syrian government repeatedly used chemical weapons last month." In its print edition April 25, the Times reported  that the White House "shares the suspicions of several of its allies that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons." That same day, with headline "White House Says Syria Has Used Chemical Arms," the Times then reported :
The White House, in a letter to congressional leaders, said the nation's intelligence agencies assessed ''with varying degrees of confidence'' that the government of President Bashar al-Assad had used the chemical agent sarin on a small scale.
The New York Times editorial board has come a long way since its days of upholding the false dichotomy of sanctions versus war as the only options for US-Iran relations. It was less than two years ago that the Times published an editorial assessing the potential paths for addressing the US-Iran impasse—and completely neglected to mention diplomacy or negotiations.
But a Saturday editorial shows that the Times's vocabulary and outlook on the subject has since undergone a significant expansion:
If there is any hope for a peaceful resolution of the nuclear dispute with Iran, President Obama needs Congress to support negotiations. But negotiations and compromise are largely anathema in Washington, with many lawmakers insisting that any deal with Iran would be unacceptable — a stance that would make military action by Israel and the United States far more likely.
Not only did the editorial board recognize that "the best way to avert military conflict is by negotiating a credible, verifiable agreement," but it also slammed two new AIPAC-sponsored Congressional initiatives aimed at sabotaging negotiations. On Sens. Lindsay Graham and Robert Menendez's "backdoor to war" resolution, S. Res. 65, the Times wrote that