I have been a reader of the New York Times for many years. I wrote a letter to their ombudsman today, because I am quite disturbed by the slant in the lead of an article today. I know that some of my readers are thinking "The New York Times? What do you expect?", but the truth is I expect far more of the Times than I do of almost any other paper, in both accuracy and objectivity. I believe that a fair comparison of their reporting with any other US-based newspaper is very much in their favor over the long run. That's why I'm so disappointed by them today.
The lead paragraph of the story "Cameraman Details Marine's Role in
Mosque Shooting" (22 November 2004) makes an inappropriate juxtaposition that, in my opinion, deliberately clouds the truth. The
text of the first sentence states that the Marine "...was not aware
that the incident was being recorded, and moments later approached
the cameraman with seemingly remorseful words - "I didn't know, sir,
I didn't know".
The full text of cameraman Kevin Site's words in the open letter that
he posted on his weblog, and which was cited as the the reporters'
source, indicate quite clearly that the Marine's words were expressing
the fact that he did not know that the wounded Iraqis were the same
ones who had been encountered and dis-armed the previous day. The
reporters end the lead with the statement that Mr. Sites' report was
"brief and somewhat ambiguous".
You can see that report here
http://www.kevinsites.net/2004_11_21_archive.html#110107420331292115
It is not brief nor is it particularly ambiguous in my opinion. Mr. Sites' description of the incident includes the following:
For a moment, I'm paralyzed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the Marines again, what I had told the lieutenant -- that this man -- all of these wounded men -- were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.
At that point the Marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir-I didn't know."
Mr. Sites could have been more explicit, but which is the more reasonable
interpretation? That the Marine was responding "I didn't know" in
reference to what Mr. Sites had just said to the lieutenant, or in
reference to his becoming aware of Mr. Sites' presence? Try as I might
to imagine the Marine simply saying "I didn't know, sir, I didn't know"
in the latter circumstance, I just can't do it. Furthermore, it is quite
clear from the many disclaimers Mr. Sites makes in his account that he is
giving the particular Marine the benefit of the doubt, and that he is
actually more concerned about two things: the fact that the wounded Iraqis
were not evacuated from the Mosque for further treatment earlier, and the
conduct of the squad of Marines who were in the Mosque immediately prior
to the squad that he was following.
The incident clearly requires investigation to the fullest, and I trust
that that is happening. Meanwhile, I find it disturbing that the Times
reporters have taken a first-hand account and created a false impression,
characterizing the Marine's words as only "seemingly remorseful" about
the fact that he as caught on video.
-rhs