Monday
Mar292010
Iran's Nukes: False Alarm Journalism (Sick)
Monday, March 29, 2010 at 6:05 
Gary Sick follows up our Sunday analysis of the exaggerated "news" in The New York Times, penned by David Sanger and William Broad, of an impending threat from Iran's nuclear programme:I was struck by two things in this newly breathless and alarmist front-page NYT report.
UPDATED Iran’s Nukes: The Dangerous News of The New York Times
First, it says its information is based on the word of officials who “insisted on anonymity because the search involves not only satellite surveillance, but also intelligence gleaned from highly classified operations.” Yet the only hard, new information is based on the public statement of the head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization [Ali Akhbar Salehi] — all that ultra-classified stuff is by their own admission nothing more than pure speculation.
Second, the other revelation is that no new centrifuges have been added to the Natanz site, which may mean that these are destined for the two new “secret” (but publicly announced) sites. Let’s see, Iran has publicly declared its Qom facility, which is under inspection, and they say that they are going to install 3000 centrifuges there. But the site is not ready, so a less sensational interpretation would be that they are holding their new centrifuges to go there when the site is ready. It’s also not surprising that they are not adding new centrifuges to the Natanz site since more than 50% of the 9000 centrifuges installed at Natanz are not actually producing enriched uranium. Why add to the non-working total?
Why do Sanger and Broad insist on spinning a conspiratorial scenario when there are perfectly rational alternatives? I guess that doesn’t qualify as a scoop, so it doesn’t deserve front-page treatment, and it makes the word of unnamed officials with access to unmentionable intelligence look pretty foolish.
Given the NYT experience with faithfully reproducing sensational and highly selective leaks prior to the Iraq war, which proved to be false and which helped get the US into a war that was initiated on false premises, it is truly difficult for me to believe that the NYT editors still continue to put out this kind of unsourced, circular, prejudicial, and logically challenged reporting — and always on the front page!
Reader Comments (6)
As I wrote yesterday, Clark Hoyt has some serious explaining to do. After all, wasn't Hoyt hired at the NYTimes as public editor precisely to stop such externally produced garbage from masquerading as news? Hoyt was director of the Washington office of the old Knight-Ridder -- and that paper chain was duly celebrated as the only one not acting like a Hearst paper in the run up to the Iraq invasion. Hoyt has a good reputation. He needs to show us that the Hoyt at Knight-Ridder still has backbone to stand up to those yet again trying to "change the subject" (off of settlements) and gin up another war.
What do you expect? Bored journos just rehashing old stuff & being paid handsomely. Nothing new in that after all it won't be them or their kids who will die in any war. It is shameful that in the world's most 'civilised'' societies false news is paraded as truth. Unfortunately Speak a lie long enough & people will start believing it to be the truth. I just hope & pray that truth loving people everywhere will be able to stop this war whicj will be devastating for many people.
@REZVAN
What war is that you are predicting?
Barry
The war that Israel and its Western and Arab allies want to inflict upon Iran.
Isn't that what Ahmadinejad wants? - to hasten the coming of the Mahdi??
Barry
@REZVAN
I would be interested to hear what you think about this excellent speech by Reza Pahlavi - delivered to the International Society of Human Rights at Bonn on March 27
A new term has entered freedom-lovers lexicon " the Islamic Inquisition". I like it. After the Inquisition comes renaissance and enlightenment.
Barry