[A-List] Powell & Press: distribute widely

bon moun sherrynstan at igc.org
Mon Feb 10 17:29:57 MST 2003

                    Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
               Media analysis, critiques and activism

A Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage
Disproof of previous claims underlines need for scrutiny

February 10, 2003

In reporting on Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation
to the United Nations Security Council, many journalists treated
allegations made by Powell as though they were facts.  Reporters at
several major outlets neglected to observe the journalistic rule of
prefacing unverified assertions with words like "claimed" or "alleged."

This is of particular concern given that over the last several months,
many Bush administration claims about alleged Iraqi weapons facilities
have failed to hold up to inspection.  In many cases, the failed claims--
like Powell's claims at the U.N.-- have cited U.S. and British
intelligence sources and have included satellite photos as evidence.


In its report on Powell's presentation, the New York Daily News (2/6/03)
accepted his evidence at face value: "To buttress his arguments, Powell
showed satellite photos of Iraqi weapons sites and played several
audiotapes intercepted by U.S. electronic eavesdroppers.  The most
dramatic featured an Iraqi Army colonel in the 2nd Republican Guards Corps
ordering a captain to sanitize communications."  The Daily News gave no
indication that it had independent confirmation that the photos were
indeed of weapons sites, or that individuals on the tapes were in fact who
Powell said they were.

In Andrea Mitchell's report on NBC Nightly News (2/5/03), Powell's
allegations became actual capabilities of the Iraqi military: "Powell
played a tape of a Mirage jet retrofitted to spray simulated anthrax, and
a model of Iraq's unmanned drones, capable of spraying chemical or germ
weapons within a radius of at least 550 miles."

Dan Rather, introducing an interview with Powell (60 Minutes II, 2/5/03),
shifted from reporting allegations to describing allegations as facts:
"Holding a vial of anthrax-like powder, Powell said Saddam might have tens
of thousands of liters of anthrax.  He showed how Iraqi jets could spray
that anthrax and how mobile laboratories are being used to concoct new
weapons."  The anthrax supply is appropriately attributed as a claim by
Powell, but the mobile laboratories were something that Powell "showed" to
be actually operating.

Commentator William Schneider on CNN Live Today (2/6/03) dismissed the
possibility that Powell could be doubted: "No one disputes the findings
Powell presented at the U.N. that Iraq is essentially guilty of failing to
disarm."  When CNN's Paula Zahn (2/5/03) interviewed Jamie Rubin, former
State Department spokesperson, she prefaced a discussion of Iraq's
response to Powell's speech thusly: "You've got to understand that most
Americans watching this were either probably laughing out loud or got sick
to their stomach. Which was it for you?"


Journalists should always be wary of implying unquestioning faith in
official assertions; recent history is full of official claims based on
satellite and other intelligence data that later turned out to be false or
dubious.  After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the first Bush administration
rallied support for sending troops to Saudi Arabia by asserting that
classified satellite photos showed the Iraqi army mobilizing on the Saudi
border.  This claim was later discredited when the St. Petersburg Times
obtained commercial satellite photos showing no such build-up (Second
Front, John R. MacArthur).  The Clinton administration justified a cruise
missile attack on the Sudan by saying that intelligence showed that the
target was a chemical weapons factory; later investigation showed it to be
a pharmaceutical factory (London Independent, 5/4/99).

In the present instance, journalists have a responsibility to put U.S.
intelligence claims in context by pointing out that a number of
allegations recently made by the current administration have already been
debunked.  Among them:

* Following a CIA warning in October that commercial satellite photos
showed Iraq was "reconstituting" its clandestine nuclear weapons program
at Al Tuwaitha, a former nuclear weapons complex, George W. Bush told a
Cincinnati audience on October 7 (New York Times, 10/8/02): "Satellite
photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have
been part of his nuclear program in the past."

When inspectors returned to Iraq, however, they visited the Al Tuwaitha
site and found no evidence to support Bush's claim.  "Since December 4
inspectors from [Mohamed] ElBaradei's International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) have scrutinized that vast complex almost a dozen times, and
reported no violations," according to an Associated Press report

* In September and October U.S. officials charged that conclusive evidence
existed that Iraq was preparing to resume manufacturing banned ballistic
missiles at several sites.  In one such report the CIA said "the only
plausible explanation" for a new structure at the Al Rafah missile test
site was that Iraqis were developing banned long-range missiles
(Associated Press, 1/18/03).  But CIA suggestions that facilities at Al
Rafah, in addition to sites at Al Mutasim and Al Mamoun, were being used
to build prohibited missile systems were found to be baseless when U.N.
inspectors repeatedly visited each site (Los Angeles Times, 1/26/03).

* British and U.S. intelligence officials said new building at Al-Qaim, a
former uranium refinery in Iraq's western desert, suggested renewed Iraqi
development of nuclear weapons.  But an extensive survey by U.N.
inspectors in December reported no violations (Associated Press, 1/18/03).

* Last fall the CIA warned that "key aspects of Iraq's offensive
[biological weapons] program are active and most elements are more
advanced and larger" than they were pre-1990, citing as evidence renewed
building at several facilities such as the Al Dawrah Vaccine Facility, the
Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute, and the Fallujah III Castor Oil
Production Plant.  By mid-January, inspectors had visited all the sites
many times over. No evidence was found that the facilities were being used
to manufacture banned weapons (Los Angeles Times, 1/26/03).

The Associated Press concluded in its January 18 analysis: "In almost two
months of surprise visits across Iraq, U.N. arms monitors have inspected
13 sites identified by U.S. and British intelligence agencies as major
'facilities of concern,' and reported no signs of revived weapons

Regarding the number of allegations made by the Bush and Blair governments
that have washed out on inspection, former U.N. weapons inspector Hans von
Sponeck told the British newspaper The Mirror (2/6/03) following Powell's
U.N. presentation:

"The inspectors have found nothing which was in the Bush and Blair
dossiers of last September.  What happened to them?  They are totally
embarrassed by them.  I have seen facilities in pieces in Iraq which U.S.
intelligence reports say are dangerous.

"The Institute of Strategic Studies referred to the Al Fallujah Three
castor oil production unit and the Al Dora foot and mouth center as
'facilities of concern.'  In 2002 I saw them and they were destroyed,
there was nothing.  All that was left were shells of buildings.  This is a
classic example of manipulating allegations, allegations being converted
into facts."

Responsible journalists should avoid playing a part in such a conversion
by making a clear distinction between what has been alleged by the U.S.
government and what has been independently verified.

For contact information for mainstream media outlets, go to:

Please support FAIR by subscribing to our bimonthly magazine, Extra! For
more information, go to: http://www.fair.org/extra/subscribe.html . Or call

FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today at
FAIR's online store:

FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations
in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit
http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html .

FAIR's INTERNSHIP PROGRAM: FAIR accepts internship applications for its New
York office on a rolling basis. For more information, see:

Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair at fair.org ). We can't reply to
everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of
your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to
fair at fair.org .

You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . Our
subscriber list is kept confidential.
                             (212) 633-6700
                          E-mail: fair at fair.org

More information about the A-List mailing list