The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy

by Howard Friel, Howard Friel

When the New York Times finally apologized for its coverage of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction in 2004, it was too late. The newspaper had already supported the invasion. The Bush administration was not only violating international law, it was lying to the public, using major media like the Times to spread its message.

In this meticulously researched study—the first part of a two-volume work—Howard Friel and Richard Falk demonstrate how the newspaper of record in the United States has consistently, over the last 50 years, misreported the facts related to the wars waged by the United States. From Vietnam in the 1960s to Nicaragua in the 1980s and Iraq today, the authors accuse the New York Times of serial distortions. They claim that such coverage now threatens not only world legal order but constitutional democracy in the United States.

Falk and Friel show, for example, that, despite numerous US threats to invade Iraq, and despite the fact that an invasion of one country by another implicates fundamental aspects of the UN Charter and international law, the New York Times editorial page never mentioned the words “UN Charter” or “international law” in any of its 70 editorials on Iraq from September 11, 2001, to March 20, 2003. The authors also show that the editorial page supported the Bush administration’s WMD claims against Iraq, and that its magazine, op-ed and news pages performed just as poorly.

In conclusion the authors suggest an alternative editorial policy of “strict scrutiny” that incorporates the UN Charter and the US Constitution in the Times coverage of the use and threat of force by the United States and the protection of civil and human rights at home and abroad.

Genres: Nonfiction, Journalism, Politics, United States, The United States Of America, Middle East, History

304 pages, Hardcover

First published November 30, 2004

Reviews

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Howard Friel and Richard Falk’s The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports Us Foreign Policy (Verso, 2004) is a blistering indictment of the New York Times coverage of foreign policy over the past fifty years, with particular emphasis on the years following September 11, 2001, the invasion and subsequent occupation and torture of Iraq, up until the manuscript’s deadline of June 2004. The book also examines the US backed coup attempt of Hugo Chavez, the World Court case of Nicaragua versus the US, the Gulf of Tonkin and the Vietnam war. It chronicles the paper’s record of ignoring international law (from September 11 2001 to March 21 2003, the editorial page never mentioned the words “UN Charter” or “international law” in the seventy editorials on Iraq), the consequences of it’s editorial policy of “non-crusading” journalism (as “former reporter and a former editor [John L. Hess and Aurthur Gelb, respectively] at the Time have pointed out, the Times applied its ‘non-crusading’ standard of editorial policy equally to housing corruption in New York City and to Hitler’s campaign in Europe”), and its legacy of “impartial” news coverage, which leaves the Times ideological on both sides of any given issue (see the chapter on Michael Ignatieff’s case for and against torture before and after Abu Graib for a devastating example of this).

But more importantly, Friel and Falk highlight the relevant facts and considerations that necessarily become unspeakable by extension of the Times’ neglect of international law.

(Read more at ideological criminal).

[Katheryn · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Record of the Paper: How the New York Time Misreports US Foreign Policy was an incredibly interesting read. It was quite informative and provided excellent documentation highlighting the definite lack of international law in the New York Times in regards to the Iraq invasion. The book is a short, yet very dry, read and didn't take me long to get through (except for the few times I fell asleep). It reads like a college textbook yet the subject matter is too nuanced for me to see it as required reading in any classroom. The entire book if filled with citations, excerpts, and quotes to the point where I ended up skimming through some pages to get back to the actual thesis portion. I doubt I would recommend the book for anyone who wasn't already preoccupied and interested in the topic, but if you're looking for an excellent subject piece for your next book report this would be perfect.