the brother man gets hammered cos the other man is so slow to correct his lies

After 1,379 Days, NYT Corrects Bogus Claim Iran ‘Sponsored’ 9/11
Adam Johnson, FAIR, Jul 6 2017

In its reporting on a dubious lawsuit alleging Iranian meta-involvement in 9/11, the NYT badly misunderstood the case and maintained for more than three years, in the paper of record, that the government of Iran “sponsored” the 9/11 attacks. The belated correction, issued late Wednesday night on two widely spaced articles on the topic, unceremoniously noted that Iran did not, in fact, help commit the 9/11 attacks. The correction came after a report about a lawsuit last week mistakenly claimed that Iran sponsored 9/11, something that had not been alleged in the suit. The article (6/29/17, archived) originally read:

The government has agreed to distribute proceeds from the building’s sale, which could bring as much as $1b, to the families of victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks, including the 9/11 attacks.

That 9/11 was an “Iranian-sponsored terrorist attack”  is a spectacular claim, and one that would radically alter the official narrative of 9/11, just casually thrown into an article by the NYT. In fact, it isn’t even something the lawsuit alleged. The case in question was a class action lawsuit for families of all terrorism victims, and since Iran was a “state sponsor of terrorism,” they were held generically responsible. (My summary – RB) The Pindosi government has always branded Iran “a state sponsor of terrorism” because of its support for Hezbollah. More recently, Iraq’s Kata’ib Hizballah has been added to the indictment. Even if these matters of support had been what the lawsuit was alleging, it would still have been remarkable that reporter Vivian Wang simply took them as facts. There’s no “alleged,” no “lawsuit claims.” Iran’s guilt was simply asserted. And that assertion stood for a week until evidently, someone got word it was grossly wrong. Late Wednesday night (6/29/17, correction updated 7/5/17), the NYT quietly added this correction to the piece:

Correction: Jul 6, 2017. An article on Friday about a jury’s decision to let the federal government seize a midtown Manhattan skyscraper it says is controlled by Iran overstated Iran’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. While a federal court found that Iran had some culpability for the 9/11 attacks as a state sponsor of terrorism, it has not been established that Iran sponsored the attacks, which were planned and executed by AQ. (A similar error occurred in a Sep 25 2013 article in the NYT.)

It’s as if the editors at the NYT just got the memo about who was responsible for 9/11. But the week it took to correct this massive error was nothing compared to the close to four years it took to update the very same claim the paper made in Sep 2013. The original article by Julie Satow (9/26/13, archived) read:

Proceeds from a sale would probably be used to pay some of the $6b in damages claimed by family members of victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, including victims of the 9/11 attacks.

That article, published in the first year of Obama’s second term, finally got corrected this week (9/26/13, correction updated 7/5/17), with basically the same correction that ran on last week’s story:

Correction: Jul 5 2017. An article on Sep 25, 2013 about the federal government’s efforts to seize a midtown Manhattan skyscraper it says is controlled by Iran overstated Iran’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. While a federal court found that Iran had some culpability for the 9/11 attacks as a state sponsor of terrorism, it has not been established that Iran sponsored the attacks, which were planned and executed by AQ.

The corrections, belated as they were, minimized the defamation of the original articles in a lawyerly manner, conceding only that “it has not been established that Iran sponsored the attacks.” It has also not been established that Israel or the Toads or the Bush 43 administration sponsored 9/11, but imagine the NYT framing allegations against those actors this way. It’s unthinkable, but because Iran is an Official Enemy of Pindostan, it is not subject to the same editorial standards as those in good standing with the State Dept.

Per the NK Law of Journalism, which states that “editorial standards are inversely proportional to a country’s enemy status,” NYT can casually smear Iran as sponsoring the deadliest act of terror on Pindosi soil, and it’s not taken seriously by anyone, just thrown into an article, forgotten about and only corrected, with no special note by the paper, almost four years later. One would be curious what the NYT public editor would say about such a glaring error but the paper eliminated the position a month ago (6/1/17). Perhaps the NYT’s in-house media analyst, Jim Rutenberg, who spends much of his time hand-wringing over “fake news” and RT, could spare a column on how this happened. This is unlikely, since with an Official Enemy, no amount of libel, no matter how egregious, merits a meaningful response from the paper of record.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s