The New York Times have published unsupported allegations that this blog is being funded by Qaddafi.
The allegation was made in a 3800 word article regarding the ongoing HRI investigation into the facts around the bombing of Misrata, the arms trade and the involvement of US and Spanish officials.
On 23rd April 2011 the New York Times published the allegation by “several readers” that HRI:
“is a Qaddafi-backed site, a Qaddafi mouthpiece or even a flat-out hoax, another Gay Girl in Damascus.”
The author of the article, ex-marine CJ Chivers (who regularly reports on military and intelligence affairs for the NYT) went on to admit that:
“I have not looked into these things, and have no evidence that HRI is any of these things”
Contacted by HRI, the office of the public editor of the New York Times, refused to remove the article or answer the question as to whether the NYT considered it ethical to publish allegations, for which even the author admitted there was no evidence. The publisher of the NYT, Arthur Sulzberger, has refused to comment.
There are a number of factual errors in the article, as will become clear as we release more information about the facts regarding the cluster bombing of Misrata and about the HRI investigation.
Updated 20 July
The issue of the short stub case, which was pretty central to the NYT article’s allegations against HRI is tackled here.
The issue of the Spanish government’s transparency regarding cluster munitions is dealt with here and here.
Mr Hiznay has failed to provide a copy of his memorandum.
More information to come.
8 replies on “The New York Times: All the Propaganda that’s Fit to Print”
CJ Chivers is not an expert on any military or intelligence affairs our group (also accused of getting funding from Libya), asked him to clarify issues as well as confirm facts and he has reverted with convolouted responses. Remember CNN, FOX and all the other “Trusted” News Channels who found ‘experts’ to comment on all and sundry in the run-up to the Iraq War, this is another of the dis-information cadre new faces same ol clap. The fact they mention HRI so prominently should be taken as a compliment, this means you are stepping on very big toes, someone in the Pentagon, DIA, CIA, DoD has taken notice of the work you do and wants you shut down. Well done mate.
To be fair, CJ Chivers is an expert on the AK47. There is, shall we say, a question mark over the credibiity of his research.
The NYT may like to read this:
is this why the ‘free’ press seems more controlled than any state press?
Thanks Brian – very interesting article
A new report from two French think tanks concludes that jihadists have played a predominant role in the eastern-Libyan rebellion against the rule of Moammar Qaddafi, and that “true democrats” represent only a minority in the rebellion. The report, furthermore, calls into question the justifications given for Western military intervention in Libya, arguing that they are largely based on media exaggerations and “outright disinformation.”
The report identifies four factions among the members of the eastern Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC). Apart from a minority of “true democrats,” the other three factions comprise partisans of a restoration of the monarchy that was overthrown by Qaddafi in 1969, Islamic extremists seeking the establishment of an Islamic state, and former fixtures of the Qaddafi regime who defected to the rebels for opportunistic or other reasons.
There is a clear overlap between the Islamists and the monarchists, inasmuch as the deposed King Idris I was himself the head of the Senussi brotherhood, which the authors describe as “an anti-Western Muslim sect that practices an austere and conservative form of Islam.” The monarchists are thus, more precisely, “monarchists-fundamentalists.”
On the Battle of Misrata:
Little by little, the city is starting to appear like a Libyan version of Sarajevo in the eyes of the “free” world. The rebels from Benghazi hope that a humanitarian crisis in Misrata will convince the Western coalition to deploy ground troops in order to save the population.
. . . During the course of April, the NGO Human Rights Watch published casualty figures concerning Misrata that reveal that, contrary to the claims made in the international media, Qaddafi loyalist forces have not massacred the residents of the town. During two months of hostilities, only 257 persons — including combatants — were killed. Among the 949 wounded, only 22 — or fewer than 3 percent — were women. If regime forces had deliberately targeted civilians, women would have represented around half of the victims.
It is thus now obvious that Western leaders — first and foremost, President Obama — have grossly exaggerated the humanitarian risk in order to justify their military action in Libya.
The real interest of Misrata lies elsewhere. . . . The control of this port, at only 220 kilometers from Tripoli, would make it an ideal base for launching a land offensive against Qaddafi.
READ MORE –> Who is “OPPOSTION” in Libya (part I) – > http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/06/who-is-oppostion-in-libya-part-i.html
Who is “OPPOSTION” in Libya (part II) – > http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/06/who-is-opposition-in-libya-part-ii.html
Al Qaeda and Libyan Revolution -> http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/06/al-qeada-and-libyan-revolution.html
Al Qaeda in Libya -> http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/06/al-qaeda-in-libya.html
OK – An article on the manufacture of consent for the war and UN Watch / MEMRI will be coming on HRI soon.
Respect for your work!
I was very surprised when I first read the coverage of international news of the NYT ye, ars ago. For what I heard, I suppose that it was a newspaper with good sources, or with good writers. Neither of that, its more like a pamphlet than other thing, and very, very ignorant of international issues. Regards and carry on!