- Hardcover: 320 pages
- Publisher: Verso Books; First Printing edition (28 Oct 2004)
- Language English
- ISBN-10: 1844670198
- ISBN-13: 978-1844670192
- Product Dimensions: 23.6 x 15.5 x 2.8 cm
- Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (1 customer review)
- Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 2,045,393 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
| |||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
Product details |
More About the Author
Product Description
Review
Howard Friel is founder and president of Differentiated Information, Inc., an information services company (www.diffinfo.net), and is the author of Dogs of War: The Wall Street Journal and the Right-Wing Campaign Against International Law, 2005. Richard Falk was the Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University, and since 2002 has been Visiting Professor of Global Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. His most recent books include Unlocking the Middle East and The Great Terror War.
Product Description
the 1954 Geneva Accords on Vietnam to Iraq today - has failed to incorporate international law into its coverage of US foreign policy. This lapse, as the authors demonstrate, has had profound implications for the quality of the Times' journalism and the function of the press in a country supposedly governed by the rule of law. In this meticulously researched study, Howard Friel and Richard Faulk reveal how the Times has consistently misreported major US foreign policy issues, including the bombing of North Vietnam in response to the Tonkin Gulf and Pleiku incidents in 1964-65, the Reagan administration's policy toward the Sandinista government of Nicaragua in the 1980s, the 2002 military coup that briefly overthrew Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's elected president, and the Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq. In their analysis of the Times' coverage of Iraq, the authors analyze the specious legal rand policy arguments given to support the invasion, the claims of Iraqi WMD, the Times' use of Ahmed Chalabi, the US cluster-bombing of Baghdad and the Iraqi town of Hilla, and a lengthy New York Times Magazine cover story that appeared to advocate the abuse and inhumane treatment of detainees that was published just as the Abu Ghraib story was breaking. Friel and Falk's eloquent and damning book concludes by proposing an alternative editorial policy that incorporates international law into the Times' coverage of US foreign policy, which, they argue, would improve the news and editorial products and the Times while aligning its editorial mission with the defense of constitutionalism and the rule of law in the United States.
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organise and find favourite items. |
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
The New York Times has a reputation in the US for high quality reporting. A recent survey indicated that 40% of people surveyed believed the NYT had a liberal bias. The paper's motto is "all the news that's fit to print". This book is a rebuttal of these views. It is important to note that NYT editorial content is carried by local/regional newspapers across the US and therefore reaches millions of people for whom this is probably their only source of foreign affairs reporting.
The authors review NYT reporting over a period of 50 years but by specific events: Iraq, the short-lived overthrow of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Nicaragua & Vietnam. Too often the NYT is seen to more or less re-state the US government view and at times, to me, the standard of reporting and the lack of proper investigation or of even basic, healthy scepticism is frankly shameful. I was staggered to learn that in the course of seventy editorials on the subject of Iraq between September 2001 and March 2003, there was no mention of international law or the UN Charter. With regard to Venezuela, the NYT referred to the removal of Chavez, a democratically elected leader, by a short-lived coup, stating ".... Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator...", without a hint of irony. Worse still, in relation to Iraq, one experienced, Pulitzer-prize winning NYT journalist seems to have been wholly dependent on information from Ahmed Chalabi, a dissident Iraqi, but there doesn't seem to have been any thought that he might not be a reliable source.
There is a particularly good section dealing with Nicaragua, especially in relation to the case against the US lodged in the International Court of Justice. The NYT reported that the court was "hostile forum" which issued "hostile judgments" against the US. The forensic analysis of the actual court decision gives the lie to this.
Although I suspect that the book will carry a much greater punch in the USA than it does in the UK, it demonstrates very clearly the dangers of an unquestioning press. Perhaps the newspaper also reflects a kind of American nationalism, whereby many Americans seem unable to accept that their government ever acts other than in pursuit of good or in an honourable cause. This might explain why the NYT does not appear to have changed its approach over such a long period. Ultimately such attitudes have serious consequences: to quote the authors, "The New York Times did the people of the United States no favor by ignoring international law in its coverage of the US invasion of Iraq. From a national-interest perspective, ignoring international law on the conduct of US foreign policy in our view undermines the national security of the United States."
The authors review NYT reporting over a period of 50 years but by specific events: Iraq, the short-lived overthrow of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Nicaragua & Vietnam. Too often the NYT is seen to more or less re-state the US government view and at times, to me, the standard of reporting and the lack of proper investigation or of even basic, healthy scepticism is frankly shameful. I was staggered to learn that in the course of seventy editorials on the subject of Iraq between September 2001 and March 2003, there was no mention of international law or the UN Charter. With regard to Venezuela, the NYT referred to the removal of Chavez, a democratically elected leader, by a short-lived coup, stating ".... Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator...", without a hint of irony. Worse still, in relation to Iraq, one experienced, Pulitzer-prize winning NYT journalist seems to have been wholly dependent on information from Ahmed Chalabi, a dissident Iraqi, but there doesn't seem to have been any thought that he might not be a reliable source.
There is a particularly good section dealing with Nicaragua, especially in relation to the case against the US lodged in the International Court of Justice. The NYT reported that the court was "hostile forum" which issued "hostile judgments" against the US. The forensic analysis of the actual court decision gives the lie to this.
Although I suspect that the book will carry a much greater punch in the USA than it does in the UK, it demonstrates very clearly the dangers of an unquestioning press. Perhaps the newspaper also reflects a kind of American nationalism, whereby many Americans seem unable to accept that their government ever acts other than in pursuit of good or in an honourable cause. This might explain why the NYT does not appear to have changed its approach over such a long period. Ultimately such attitudes have serious consequences: to quote the authors, "The New York Times did the people of the United States no favor by ignoring international law in its coverage of the US invasion of Iraq. From a national-interest perspective, ignoring international law on the conduct of US foreign policy in our view undermines the national security of the United States."
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
7 reviews
29 of 34 people found the following review helpful
Outstanding study of how US foreign policy is reported
28 Jan 2005
Format:Hardcover
The New York Times has for the last 50 years refused to consider international law as relevant to US foreign policy. This outstanding book shows how this failure has distorted the Times' news and views and led to regular acceptance of the US state's deceptions.
The authors show how the Times has consistently echoed the US government. For example, it ignored the 1954 Geneva peace accords, reported as fact President Johnson's lies about Vietnamese aggression in the Tonkin Gulf in 1964, backed the illegal US interference in Nicaragua, misreported the 1986 World Court's condemnation of this interference, and denied the US role in the coup attempts against Venezuela's elected President.
Recently, the Times endorsed the illegal Bush/Blair aggression against Iraq, a violation of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force. In its 70 editorials on Iraq between 11 September 2001 and 21 March 2003, it never mentioned the UN Charter or international law.
The Times presented Iraqi possession of WMD as fact, ignoring the IAEA's 60 reports showing it had destroyed Iraq's nuclear programme. The Times also ignored the UNMOVIC and IAEA reports that they had inspected eight of the nine suspected WMD sites listed in Blair's September 2002 dossier, and found no evidence of WMD. The Times failed to note that possession of WMD, even if proven, is not a casus belli.
The illegal invasion of Iraq led inevitably to all the other illegalities, the illegal occupation, the killing of more than 100,000 civilians, the illegal detention of 40,000 Iraqis, the systematic abuse and atrocities, the destruction of 70% of Fallujah's homes.
The authors point out that torture thrives where detainees are illegally held in secret without charge or trial, that is, kidnapped. This crime by the US and British leaders led inevitably to breaches of the US Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment, and of the Geneva Conventions and the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The authors show how the Times has consistently echoed the US government. For example, it ignored the 1954 Geneva peace accords, reported as fact President Johnson's lies about Vietnamese aggression in the Tonkin Gulf in 1964, backed the illegal US interference in Nicaragua, misreported the 1986 World Court's condemnation of this interference, and denied the US role in the coup attempts against Venezuela's elected President.
Recently, the Times endorsed the illegal Bush/Blair aggression against Iraq, a violation of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force. In its 70 editorials on Iraq between 11 September 2001 and 21 March 2003, it never mentioned the UN Charter or international law.
The Times presented Iraqi possession of WMD as fact, ignoring the IAEA's 60 reports showing it had destroyed Iraq's nuclear programme. The Times also ignored the UNMOVIC and IAEA reports that they had inspected eight of the nine suspected WMD sites listed in Blair's September 2002 dossier, and found no evidence of WMD. The Times failed to note that possession of WMD, even if proven, is not a casus belli.
The illegal invasion of Iraq led inevitably to all the other illegalities, the illegal occupation, the killing of more than 100,000 civilians, the illegal detention of 40,000 Iraqis, the systematic abuse and atrocities, the destruction of 70% of Fallujah's homes.
The authors point out that torture thrives where detainees are illegally held in secret without charge or trial, that is, kidnapped. This crime by the US and British leaders led inevitably to breaches of the US Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment, and of the Geneva Conventions and the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
14 of 17 people found the following review helpful
A good and thorough inspection lacking in muscle and sophistication
19 Aug 2005
Format:Hardcover
This book begins from a very demure and subdued persepective then slowly lashes out with the meticulous research on the part of the authors.
You WILL see a pattern of a co-opted agenda at the New York Times foreign policy desk, but the book refuses to go the extra mile and portray the deeper journalistic and personal conflicts of the offending reporters.
While the book avoids mudslinging about the Times' new questionable real estate acquistions, it also avoids impugning the paper too much. For example, where the author could have and SHOULD have come down hard on the felonious misinformation of Mr. Chalabi, it did not. When it could have covered the greater implications of Iraq or Vietnam and cleared up chronic misconceptions about both conflicts, it failed to and only waved the ideologies of the authors.
If you're a straight shooter, you probably won't like the almost childish way that the authors try to suddenly hammer their point in half a page after subtly pushing it, as if they were unsure of their work. Also, the book's starting point that the New York Times has committed egregious errors while admitting that only the Times is targeted because of its stature in the nation and in the hearts of the authors makes them sound like fans who have been betrayed than sophisticated experts.
All in all, the research itself is among the most extensive on the technical level and will be referenced for years if not decades by ideologues and political analysts alike. The chapter about the recent events in Venezuela is an astounding touch and is actually the highlight of effective research and the government's doublethink tendencies. If you're remotely interested in world events, journalism, or just truth as a whole, try to read at least half of this book. It may take some time, but you'll like it.
You WILL see a pattern of a co-opted agenda at the New York Times foreign policy desk, but the book refuses to go the extra mile and portray the deeper journalistic and personal conflicts of the offending reporters.
While the book avoids mudslinging about the Times' new questionable real estate acquistions, it also avoids impugning the paper too much. For example, where the author could have and SHOULD have come down hard on the felonious misinformation of Mr. Chalabi, it did not. When it could have covered the greater implications of Iraq or Vietnam and cleared up chronic misconceptions about both conflicts, it failed to and only waved the ideologies of the authors.
If you're a straight shooter, you probably won't like the almost childish way that the authors try to suddenly hammer their point in half a page after subtly pushing it, as if they were unsure of their work. Also, the book's starting point that the New York Times has committed egregious errors while admitting that only the Times is targeted because of its stature in the nation and in the hearts of the authors makes them sound like fans who have been betrayed than sophisticated experts.
All in all, the research itself is among the most extensive on the technical level and will be referenced for years if not decades by ideologues and political analysts alike. The chapter about the recent events in Venezuela is an astounding touch and is actually the highlight of effective research and the government's doublethink tendencies. If you're remotely interested in world events, journalism, or just truth as a whole, try to read at least half of this book. It may take some time, but you'll like it.
27 of 35 people found the following review helpful
who watches the watchmen
30 Nov 2004
Format:Hardcover
In the mainstream newsmedia, the New York Times serves an important watchdog public-intellectual role. Unfortunately, it has not maintained these standards--not now, and not for several decades, it would seem.
Mr. Falk and Friel have written a very timely rebuttal to "all the news that's fit to print"--read it now, and you'll understand how the news and political machines are not so different from one another.
Mr. Falk and Friel have written a very timely rebuttal to "all the news that's fit to print"--read it now, and you'll understand how the news and political machines are not so different from one another.
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
- Books > History
- Books > Languages
- Books > Reference > Language
- Books > Reference > Writing > Journalism
- Books > Science & Nature > History & Philosophy > Reference
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Government & Politics > Civil Liberties & Political Activism > Freedom of Information & Speech
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Social Sciences > Communication Studies > Media & Communication Industries > Press & Journalism
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
