I'm shocked, shocked . . .
Via Captain's Quarters:
CBS News reports that the American and Italian investigators looking into the death of Italian commando Nicola Calipari and wounding of hostage/journalist Giuliana Sgrena have evidence that Sgrena lied about the incident from the beginning. Sgrena has long insisted that the Italian driver slowed down to under 30 MPH before approaching the checkpoint, whereupon American soldiers opened fire without warning. However, CBS now claims that data from military satellites clearly showed the car traveling towards the checkpoint at over 60 MPH without slowing down at all, triggering the defensive response from the American soldiers.
Update: This -- from Patterico's Pontifications actually did surprise me, though I can't for the life of me say why it should: "Los Angeles Times editors have edited a Reuters story to remove critical facts supporting the U.S. position on an important international issue." [They omitted the facts about the satellite evidence of the car's speed.]
CBS News reports that the American and Italian investigators looking into the death of Italian commando Nicola Calipari and wounding of hostage/journalist Giuliana Sgrena have evidence that Sgrena lied about the incident from the beginning. Sgrena has long insisted that the Italian driver slowed down to under 30 MPH before approaching the checkpoint, whereupon American soldiers opened fire without warning. However, CBS now claims that data from military satellites clearly showed the car traveling towards the checkpoint at over 60 MPH without slowing down at all, triggering the defensive response from the American soldiers.
Update: This -- from Patterico's Pontifications actually did surprise me, though I can't for the life of me say why it should: "Los Angeles Times editors have edited a Reuters story to remove critical facts supporting the U.S. position on an important international issue." [They omitted the facts about the satellite evidence of the car's speed.]
posted by Kate Marie | 6:25 PM | Permalink
|
32 comments
32 Comments:
Sounds to me like you are getting upset over nothing. It is not a fact that the car was going at 60 mph and not 30; it is something CBS news reports it was told by American investigators. On the other hand, Italian investigators say this is false. To refer to it as a fact at this point is downright wrong. When the US releases the video, then it will become a fact.
The criticism here is plainly ridiculous. US government says there is proof of X, Italian argument say its not true and actually Y happened. Oh, the damn liberal media, representing this is a matter in dispute, rather than reporting the US position as a fact!
Incidentally, the LA Times article also cut out other parts of the Reuters article; the Reuters article referred to the incident as "an embarassment for the Bush administration;" it also noted that the Iraq war faced stiff opposition in Italy. That the LA Times cut out all these sections suggests to me that they stripped the article down to the basic facts.
Alex, I disagree (surprise, surprise).
Eugene Volokh's take on this seems right to me:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_01-2005_05_07.shtml#1114924840
Regarding media bias, you might also want to take a look at this post:
http://whatstherumpus.blogspot.com/2005/04/time-to-retire-filibuster.html
And here's a letter that Patterico wrote to the L.A. Times, which makes a lot of sense to me:
http://patterico.com/2005/05/01/2938/my-letter-to-the-readers-representative-about-the-ila-timesis-editing-of-those-reuters-stories/
Dear Ms. Gold,
Your paper recently ran two Reuters stories concerning the shooting of the car with Giuliana Sgrena. Each of the Reuters stories contained the following quote:
CBS news has reported that a U.S. satellite had filmed the shooting and that it had been established the car carrying Calipari was traveling at more than 60 mph per hour [sic] as it approached the U.S. checkpoint in Baghdad.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8350013
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8351887
The L.A. Times reprints of these stories, published April 30, 2005 ("U.S., Italy Fail to Agree on Slaying “), and May 1, 2005 ("Italy to Step Up Inquiry Into Agent’s Death in Iraq"), both omitted the above quote. The L.A. Times versions presented the issue of the car’s speed as a swearing contest between American soldiers, on one hand, and Sgrena and her driver, on the other. No mention of the satellite evidence appeared in the L.A. Times edits:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-nicola30apr30,1,6728628.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-italy1may01,1,946622.story
I am curious to know why this was done. The only arguably legitimate reason I can imagine is that L.A. Times editors have reason to doubt the reports about the satellite recording. But, if that’s the case, I would expect them to report the facts supporting their doubts. After all, the story is in wide circulation, with CBS News, Reuters, and AFP all reporting it (albeit all based on the CBS News report). If there is reason to doubt the story, the public should know that.
If the passage was cut for other reasons, the public should know that too. I can’t imagine that it was done for space reasons. Since this incident happened, the L.A. Times has run numerous articles reporting Sgrena’s allegations that the car had been going only 25-30 mph. This is a critical issue in the controversy between Italy and the U.S. over the shooting. Under these circumstances, space can’t be a legitimate reason for omitting the alleged existence of definitive proof that the car was speeding.
I would appreciate it if you would pass along the editors’ reasons for cutting this passage out of the Reuters stories. I will be happy to print any response on my blog. Thanks.
Patrick Frey
Patterico’s Pontifications
http://patterico.com
As always, I will let you know what I hear in response.
UPDATE: I sent a follow-up e-mail:
Re my previous e-mail:
I am also interested to know why, in the first story, editors changed the word “killing” in the first sentence of the Reuters story to the more sinister-sounding word “slaying.”
Patterico
Patterico’s Pontifications
None of these things changes the basics of the situation one bit.
Which are:
There is a satellite recording of the car.
US investigators who watched it say the car wsa going at 60 mph.
Italian investigators who watched it say it was not.
And so the Times accurately reports that there is a dispute.
On this point, Volokh notes,
"Without the paragraph, the matter sounds like a swearing contest ... With the paragraph, though, it sounds like the Americans were indeed right."
Perhaps Volokh should carry his analysis one step further and ask what the reality is, as it would appear to a reporter trying to be objective. That reality is that at this point the contest is a swearing match between two governments.
Editing articles to make their reporting match the known facts - isn't that what editors are supposed to do?
I am proud to say I have now written a letter to Reuters. For your benefit, I reproduce the text below.
Dear left-wing editor,
Your paper recently ran a story concerning the shooting of the car with Giuliana Sgrena.
Italian newspapers have reported that a U.S. satellite had filmed the shooting and that it had been established by Italian investigators that the car carrying Calipari was traveling at far less than 60 mph as it approached the U.S. checkpoint in Baghdad. Reuters, however, chose to give the most space to the assertions made by American investigators that contradict the conclusions of the Italian investigators.
I am curious to know why this was done. The only arguably legitimate reason I can imagine is that Reuters editors have reason to doubt the Italian reports. But, if that’s the case, I would expect them to report the facts supporting their doubts. After all, the story is in wide circulation, with CBS News, Reuters, and AFP all reporting it. If there is reason to doubt the story, the public should know that.
If the passage was cut for other reasons, the public should know that too. I can’t imagine that it was done for space reasons. Since this incident happened, the L.A. Times has run numerous articles reporting Sgrena’s allegations that the car had been going only 25-30 mph. This is a critical issue in the controversy between Italy and the U.S. over the shooting. Under these circumstances, space can’t be a legitimate reason for omitting the alleged existence of definitive proof that the car was speeding.
I would appreciate it if you would pass along the editors’ reasons for cutting this passage out of the Reuters stories. I will be happy to print any response on my wonderful blog (it goes without saying that my generous offer to print your responses on my site matters a lot to you). Thanks.
The One and Only Detached Observer
------------------------
The point, anyway, is that in the face of conflicting news reports, an objective newspaper ought to portray the matter as being in dispute. "Why did you leave out CBS reporting what American investigators told it" is just as silly of a question as "Why did you leave out Italian reports of what the Italian investigators found."
"There is a satellite recording of the car.
US investigators who watched it say the car wsa going at 60 mph.
Italian investigators who watched it say it was not."
-- Alex, the Times reports there was a dispute but it reports nothing about the alleged satellite evidence. That's a significant omission -- and it appears to be unique, since the CBS story has been mentioned in almost all of the other reports on the incident/investigation (including reports in Arab media). Given that fact, and the fact that the mention of the CBS report could have been accomplished in one additional sentence, "space considerations" is not a convincing reason for the Times omission.
"That reality is that at this point the contest is a swearing match between two governments."
-- The Times could have presented this as the "reality" and still have mentioned the CBS report. As both Volokh and Patterico have pointed out, if they had reason to suspect or doubt the CBS report, they could have reported on those reasons (but maybe that would have required too much reportorial effort). To have omitted mention of it altogether is highly questionable.
"Editing articles to make their reporting match the known facts - isn't that what editors are supposed to do?"
-- Ummm,have you ever read the Los Angeles Times, Alex? Did you catch their paean to North Korea a few months ago -- or their homage to Pablo Neruda which included not a single mention of Stalin?
Well, you've demonstrated that you can cut and paste, Alex, but your parody of Patterico's letter gets a little shaky (especially in the final few paragraphs). As Patterico points out (and as your letter also points out), the Los Angeles Times has made numerous mentions of Sgrena's allegations --why the reticence now that there are allegations (not proven) which contradict her equally unproven allegations?
Did you read the Reuters report? They mention the CBS News story in a single sentence (on page 2); they treat it as an allegation only, in the context of a story that treats the controversy as an ongoing dispute (just like the L.A. Times). By the way, there is no indication, from the Reuters article, that Italians have seen the alleged satellite evidence that CBS reports on. In any event, your letter is cute, but there is a difference between complaining that a report omits information that has been widely reported elsewhere and complaining that a report includes information which might or might not have a bearing on the case (Reuters makes no claim either way in this regard).
"have you ever read the Los Angeles Times, Alex?"
"Did you read the Reuters report?"
I hereby profess to have read both of them.
"Well, you've demonstrated that you can cut and paste, Alex..."
Ah, the time I have spent getting an education did not go for naught.
"By the way, there is no indication, from the Reuters article, that Italians have seen the alleged satellite evidence that CBS reports on."
All the news sources have reported that US and Italian investigators conducted a joint investigation, in which they reviewed all the evidence together; they will now write two separate reports based on exactly the same evidence.
As for this satellite evidence - yes, the LA Times did not mention it. So what? It was a very short report, and clearly incomplete.
If that is all the Times is "guilty" of - not mentioning all the relevant evidence in a story that was only a few paragraphs long - well, its not much of a criticism, is it?
The more relevant issue is, was the Times piece accurate? Did it present the facts objectively? And given that we have a swearing match between two governments, who according to the offical reports reviewed the same evidence, I'd say that I don't see anything inaccurate about it.
Repeating the above point in different words: given that both governments have, according to the best information, reviewed all the evidence together, and have come to different conclusions, the existence of satellite evidence does not bias the story one way or the other.
"As Patterico points out (and as your letter also points out), the Los Angeles Times has made numerous mentions of Sgrena's allegations --why the reticence now that there are allegations (not proven) which contradict her equally unproven allegations?"
Oh, but the Times reported extensively on the allegations by the U.S. military.
The question here - and in Patterico's letter - boils down to something along the lines of "why did the Times write a short story on this matter instead of a long one?" And my answer is, as long as the story accurately rendered the facts and reported on the allegations of both sides without bias I really dont see why anyone ought to care. (and as I pointed out, omission of satellite evidence does not bias the story either way)
"The question here - and in Patterico's letter - boils down to something along the lines of "why did the Times write a short story on this matter instead of a long one?" And my answer is, as long as the story accurately rendered the facts and reported on the allegations of both sides without bias I really dont see why anyone ought to care. (and as I pointed out, omission of satellite evidence does not bias the story either way)"
-- A short story instead of a long one? As I pointed out, including a mention of the CBS report would have required an extra sentence. The alleged satellite evidence does not contradict the fact of the dispute between Italian and U.S. officials, but it is an additional, widely reported, allegation that there exists a "recording" of the incident that could help investigators verify the speed of the vehicle (I actually have no idea whether a satellite recording can actually do that). That this recording exists at all is, if true, a significant fact about the evidence that the U.S. and Italian officials relied on for their conclusions.
If the Times had done a series of articles on a rape case in which both sides (the "eyewitnesses") made contradictory allegations in a he said/she said manner, it would be a pretty significant omission for them to leave out the fact that there existed DNA evidence in the case -- and it's a significant omission whether that evidence was likewise in dispute or not. In reality, it probably always is in dispute, but does that mean that the fact of its existence, or credible allegations of its existence, should be withheld from Times readers.
Well, whether it is an extra sentence or not depends a lot on the journalistic standards of the paper. Perhaps they felt that if they were going to write about the satellite evidence, more background information from experts on this sort of thing would be required. Perhaps - and more likely - the story was edited by an editor eager to go to lunch. Who knows?
And I say, who cares? Yes, the Times made an editorial decision that its not important to let its readers know satellite evidence exists. I dont know whether its right decision, and clearly you think it was the wrong one; but as long as the final report of the Times is accurate and unbiased, I really don't see why anyone should care.
The real issue, in my opinion, is that the Times took a story that implied the U.S. was right and edited it into a story that implied its not clear who is right. Volokh , in the post you linked to, is particularly and amusingly candid about this. But it really is not clear who is right, at least to a person with no a-priori views on which government (American or Italian) is more trustworthy. So I think our judgement has to be that, whatever journalistic faults the Times is guilty of as far as keeping their readers in the dark about satellites, its not guilty of bias in this instance.
"The real issue, in my opinion, is that the Times took a story that implied the U.S. was right and edited it into a story that implied its not clear who is right."
-- It's a VERY big stretch to say that the Reuters story implied that the U.S. was right. The information about the CBS report comes in a single sentence on page 2 of the report, in the context of the continuing dispute over the incident.
The charge of bias is always difficult to make "stick," because it involves informed guessing about the motivations of editors/reporters. All we have to go on is how issues are framed, what kinds of evidence facts are included/omitted, and reportorial diction. But newspapers and reporters, it seems, rely on that difficulty as a way of deflecting ANY criticism or charges of bias.
P.S. I mean that's usually all we have to go on. Occasionally, we get something more -- like Rathergate.
"It's a VERY big stretch to say that the story implied that the U.S. was right."
Perhaps you are right; but let's note that I am not the only one who felt this way; Eugene Volokh wrote the same in the post you linked to.
"...newspapers and reporters, it seems, rely on that difficulty as a way of deflecting ANY criticism or charges of bias."
That's no excuse for making a charge of bias where there is no evidence any exists. We can't go from "LA Times omitted an important aspect of the story" to "the LA Times is biased" unless we can demonstrate that the omission biases the story; and in this case, I don't believe we can.
Whether it biases the story depends upon one's perception of what the story is. Defining a story in its narrowest terms can make even the most serious omissions "unbiased."
A paper could run a story like "American Communists and liberal anti-Communists disagree about the Moscow show trials." I can think of lots of omissions in that kind of story that wouldn't bias the "main point" (that there is disagreement).
Well, then, if you are going to make an accusation of bias, give a definition of the story and explain how the omission biases it.
....and please don't do it by responding "the story is the satellite videos and the bias is in omitting any mention of the story" cause then, clearly, you've gotten the story definition wrong.
The story is the satellite videos and the bias is in omitting any mention of the story.
Nyaaa Nyaaaa Nyaaaa Nyaaaa Nyaaaaaa Nyaaaaa!
Couldn't resist. Sorry.
How about the story is the dispute over the investigation and the bias is in omitting any mention of alleged facts/evidence that might be relevant to the investigation?
"How about the story is the dispute over the investigation and the bias is in omitting any mention of alleged facts/evidence that might be relevant to the investigation?"
Well, its not really bias then...to be biased, the omission must tilt the story in favor of one party.
"Well, its not really bias then...to be biased, the omission must tilt the story in favor of one party."
-- Can't say I agree with you there. So if someone is doing a story on the relative merits of North Korea and Japan, it would be an example of bias to include evidence/facts that tilted the story in favor of Japan?
Take that question one step further, and you get that an accusation of bias makes no sense since every news story is always biased. Indeed, to compare North Korea and Japan you have to ask questions like...is there such a thing as human rights?...are torture, murder, and dictatorship wrong? And so on.
When we speak of biased news stories, though, we ignore these issues; we have decided that a certain kind of bias is acceptable. Specifically, we do not charge newspapers with being biased every time we read about North Korean atrocities. Every political report that factchecks a candidate's assertions and confronts him based on the misrepresentatoins has a bias towards the truth. We nevertheless conceive of such reports as "unbiased" which we understand as shorthand for the story sharing the fundamental biases that we all accept.
Stories that systematically favor one party relative to the "unbiased" position are ones we call biased. This story cannot be biased because it does not favor any of the parties described in the story.
Unless you have a better definition?
er...does not favor any of the parties described in the story compared to the "unbiased" position.
Forgot to complete the sentence.
Anyway, I've argued in these comments that the unbiased position ought to be neutral between the two claims of Italy and the United States; so is the story.
But the Reuters story is also neutral with respect to the dispute between Italy and the U.S. -- I don't see how it can be construed otherwise. The Times decision (which appears to have been unique for this story) to excise the line about the CBS News report -- while it may not technically bias the story about the dispute between the U.S. and Italy -- smells a bit fishy to me.
As for whether the unbiased opinion ought to be neutral between the claims of Italy and the United States, again -- it depends on the story. Ought an unbiased opinion regarding a dispute between Bukharin and Stalin regarding the Moscow show trials be neutral with respect to the claims of the two opponents? Clearly, no, because, as you have pointed out, we assume that news articles should be biased in favor of the truth. Now, whether the alleged existence of some evidence which might help verify the relative truth of the disputed claims falls under the reportorial duty to "get at the truth" is debatable, I suppose.
But surely you'll agree that bias is not just a matter of the stories themselves, but of how they get framed and whether they get reported at all.
I agree that its quite plausible for the omission of this bit to "smell fishy," but thats a far cry from the accusations of dishonesty being made.
I have nothing more to say, Alex. Just wanted the last word.
Well, youre going to be dissapointed when you read this then.
You DO have a sense of humor!
Bravo.
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a gardening organic vegetable
site/blog. It pretty much covers gardening organic vegetablerelated stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
nice site about forced stripped
i been interested in forced stripped for ages now and when i was searching for stuff to do with forced stripped
i came across here your ranked high for forced stripped
Check my site :) forced stripped
Great site about web site design company ! website design bathurst
That is a good point. I found another lexus park place site that goes into even more lexus park placedetail.
Post a Comment
<< Home