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

Howard Friel (Author), Richard Falk (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: November 17, 2004

A scathing and thoroughly researched examination of the editorial practices of the world’s most consulted newspaper.

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.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Although the New York Times is often attacked by conservative critics, this meticulous dissection of its foreign policy reporting comes from two international law experts who have more in common with Noam Chomsky than Rush Limbaugh. Friel (Dogs of War: The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page) and Falk (Unlocking the Middle East) use substantial research to argue that the Times has long "ignor[ed] international law when it applies to US foreign policy" and that the paper has willfully "failed to make a serious effort to expose government deception and misconduct." Presenting insightful chapters on coverage of the 1954 Geneva Accords on Vietnam, the Reagan administration's policy toward Nicaragua, the short-lived coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and more, the authors detail how the Times presented official U.S. government policy instead of what the authors would consider a real investigation (and how publication of the Pentagon Papers was the exception to the rule). Regarding more recent incidents, Friel and Falk provocatively argue that the Times's front-page coverage of Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs may have been the result of Iraqi National Congress head Ahmed Chalabi "being paid by the US government to plant stories in the Times." This argument, combined with the other more historical examples, should bring much attention to this skillful work.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist

Despite its vaunted reputation as the nation's newspaper of record, the New York Times has failed to provide the kind of objective, thoughtful coverage the nation needs, according to journalism critic Friel and journalism professor Falk. The authors are scathing in their criticism of the New York Times in particular and, by extension, the U.S. press in general for failing to provide a more global perspective on the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Through meticulous research, the authors show how the Times has ignored international law issues and helped to promote the unilateral perspectives of the Bush administration and the American public. They excoriate the "liberal hawks" of the editorial page, who assiduously position themselves between the Left and the Right in an effort to simulate balance. Friel and Falk advocate incorporating the basic standards of international law into American foreign policy and into the editorial policies of leading news organizations. Vanessa Bush
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 304 pages
• Publisher: Verso (November 17, 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1844670198
• ISBN-13: 978-1844670192
• Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.1 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.6 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (7 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #781,485 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

29 of 34 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Outstanding study of how US foreign policy is reported, January 28, 2005

By 

William Podmore (London United Kingdom) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy (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.

14 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A good and thorough inspection lacking in muscle and sophistication, August 18, 2005

By 

David Liao "Taospark" (Brooklyn, NY) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy (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.

27 of 35 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars who watches the watchmen, November 30, 2004

By 

B. Liang (chicago, IL) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy (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.