[Media-watch] FW: Media Dodging U.N. Surveillance Story

david Miller david.miller at stir.ac.uk
Mon Mar 10 12:43:15 GMT 2003



From: Common Dreams
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0306-12.htm




/Published on Thursday, March 6, 2003 by FAIR's Media Beat
<http://www.fair.org/media-beat/index.html> /
* Media Dodging U.N. Surveillance Story *
*by Norman Solomon*
 

Three days after a British newspaper revealed a memo about U.S. spying
on U.N. Security Council delegations, I asked Daniel Ellsberg to assess
the importance of the story. "This leak," he replied, "is more timely
and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers."

The key word is "timely." Publication of the secret Pentagon Papers in
1971, made possible by Ellsberg's heroic decision to leak those
documents, came after the Vietnam War had already been underway for many
years. But with all-out war on Iraq still in the future, the leak about
spying at the United Nations could erode the Bush administration's
already slim chances of getting a war resolution through the Security
Council.

"As part of its battle to win votes in favor of war against Iraq," the
London-based Observer reported on March 2
<http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0302-01.htm>, the U.S.
government developed an "aggressive surveillance operation, which
involves interception of the home and office telephones and the e-mails
of U.N. delegates." The smoking gun was "a memorandum written by a top
official at the National Security Agency -- the U.S. body which
intercepts communications around the world -- and circulated to both
senior agents in his organization and to a friendly foreign intelligence
agency."

The Observer added: "The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target
of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola,
Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the U.N. headquarters in
New York -- the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being
fought over by the pro-war party, led by the U.S. and Britain, and the
party arguing for more time for U.N. inspections, led by France, China
and Russia."

The NSA memo, dated Jan. 31, outlines the wide scope of the surveillance
activities, seeking any information useful to push a war resolution
through the Security Council -- "the whole gamut of information that
could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to
U.S. goals or to head off surprises."

Three days after the memo came to light, the Times of London printed an
article <http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0305-01.htm> noting
that the Bush administration "finds itself isolated" in its zeal for war
on Iraq. "In the most recent setback," the newspaper reported, "a
memorandum by the U.S. National Security Agency, leaked to the Observer,
revealed that American spies were ordered to eavesdrop on the
conversations of the six undecided countries on the United Nations
Security Council."

The London Times article called it an "embarrassing disclosure." And the
embarrassment was nearly worldwide. From Russia to France to Chile to
Japan to Australia, the story was big mainstream news. But not in the
United States.

Several days after the "embarrassing disclosure," not a word about it
had appeared in America's supposed paper of record. The New York Times
-- the single most influential media outlet in the United States --
still had not printed anything about the story. How could that be?

"Well, it's not that we haven't been interested," New York Times deputy
foreign editor Alison Smale said Wednesday night, nearly 96 hours after
the Observer broke the story. "We could get no confirmation or comment"
on the memo from U.S. officials.

The Times opted not to relay the Observer's account, Smale told me. "We
would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting." She added:
"We are still definitely looking into it. It's not that we're not."

Belated coverage would be better than none at all. But readers should be
suspicious of the failure of the New York Times to cover this story
during the crucial first days after it broke. At some moments in
history, when war and peace hang in the balance, journalism delayed is
journalism denied.

Overall, the sparse U.S. coverage that did take place seemed eager to
downplay the significance of the Observer's revelations. On March 4, the
Washington Post ran a back-page 514-word article headlined "Spying
Report No Shock to U.N.," while the Los Angeles Times published a longer
piece that began by emphasizing that U.S. spy activities at the United
Nations are "long-standing."

The U.S. media treatment has contrasted sharply with coverage on other
continents. "While some have taken a ho-hum attitude in the U.S., many
around the world are furious," says Ed Vulliamy, one of the Observer
reporters who wrote the March 2 article. "Still, almost all governments
are extremely reluctant to speak up against the espionage. This further
illustrates their vulnerability to the U.S. government."

To Daniel Ellsberg, the leaking of the NSA memo was a hopeful sign.
"Truth-telling like this can stop a war," he said. Time is short for
insiders at intelligence agencies "to tell the truth and save many many
lives." But major news outlets must stop dodging the information that
emerges.

/Norman Solomon is co-author of the new book "Target Iraq: What the News
Media Didn't Tell You," published by Context Books
(www.contextbooks.com/newF.html <http://www.contextbooks.com/newF.html>)./

/Background link: http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR030403.htm/




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


New subscribe/unsubscribe protocol!
--
Subscribe - send a blank message to:
media-squatters-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe- send a blank message to:
media-squatters-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
--
Reduce clutter - default to 'daily digest' at groups.yahoo.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/









More information about the Media-watch mailing list