Re: DU in the Media

                                 FAIR-L
                    Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
               Media analysis, critiques and news reports





MEDIA ADVISORY:
Depleted Coverage of NATO's Depleted Uranium Weapons

January 10, 2001

Concern has been mounting rapidly throughout Europe over the effects of
depleted uranium (DU) munitions used by NATO in Bosnia and Yugoslavia during
the 1994-95 and 1999 wars. At least 12 soldiers-- six Italian, five Belgian
and one Portuguese-- who served in the Balkans have died of leukemia or
other forms of cancer; several Italian, Spanish, French and Dutch soldiers
are being treated for cancer; and several other European countries are
currently testing their soldiers for signs of illness.

Other soldiers and aid workers have experienced symptoms including "chronic
fatigue, hair loss and various types of cancer" (New York Times, 1/7/01),
ailments which have collectively come to be known as "Balkans War Syndrome,"
much like Gulf War Syndrome.

Italy, Belgium, France, Portugal and Germany have all demanded that NATO
conduct a thorough investigation into the health and environmental impacts
of DU, and have expressed distrust of Pentagon and NATO reassurances (Agence
France Presse, 1/8/01). Reports in the European press suggest that the
situation is causing serious divisions within the alliance, with the
conservative London Times asserting that the soldiers' "Deaths Threaten the
Unity of Nato" (1/6/01). Germany has called on NATO to ban the toxic and
radioactive metal (The Independent, 1/9/01), while the United Nations' war
crimes tribunal has offered to make available all relevant records on the
Kosovo war, raising the question of the legality of NATO's use of DU (Agence
France Presse, 1/8/01).

Since the new year, stories about the DU controversy have been running
almost daily in every major British newspaper, with the Guardian (1/8/01)
and Independent (1/6/01) each running editorials calling for a NATO
investigation into DU's health effects. Altogether, the London Independent
has run 14 original articles; the London Times has run 12; the Daily
Telegraph has run 10; and the Guardian and its Sunday paper, the Observer,
have run eight.

Meanwhile, in the U.S.-- the country most responsible by far for DU
contamination-- newspapers have relegated most of their coverage to news
briefs and short wire stories. The only U.S. newspaper in the Nexis media
database to have run an editorial on the current controversy is the Seattle
Times (1/6/01). Big picture questions about the extensive use of DU since
the Gulf War, its lasting impact on civilian populations and the record of
official deception around DU have been largely ignored in both print and
broadcast reports.

Apart from small wire stories, the New York Times has run only three
original pieces on the current DU controversy. The Washington Post and
Chicago Tribune have each run two original stories on the topic, while the
Los Angeles Times, USA Today and Christian Science Monitor have run one
apiece.

Besides a sprinkling of news briefs and short wire service stories in papers
across the country (one of the most widely used was the Associated Press'
January 5 piece noting "many medical experts" who are "skeptical" of DU's
dangers), these few articles represent the extent of U.S. print coverage of
the current controversy.

Television coverage has also been limited. CNN has aired two reports on DU
(1/7/01, 1/10/01), while the three networks' evening news broadcasts each
did one story (NBC, 1/7/01; ABC, 1/8/01; CBS, 1/8/01).

Only three of the mainstream U.S. media reports about the current
controversy have referred in any detail to the parallels between Balkans War
Syndrome and the illnesses alleged to have resulted from use of DU during
the Gulf War-- the Los Angeles Times article (1/6/01, which also ran the
next day in Newsday), one Chicago Tribune article (1/9/01) and the Christian
Science Monitor's excellent January 9 piece.  Though richer in background
than other U.S. reports, neither the L.A. Times nor the Tribune articles
addressed the growing evidence that the U.S. military has long known about
and attempted to conceal the dangers of DU. (For more information on this
point, see the resources listed below.)

Nor was the larger question about DU raised: Is it legal? In a December 18
draft recommendation that went largely unremarked, the Environment Committee
of the Council of Europe found that during the Kosovo war, NATO countries
violated provisions of the Geneva Conventions intended to limit
environmental damage.

Among other things, the committee cited "the use of depleted uranium in
warheads" as a violation that had "dramatically worsened" Yugoslavia's
environment "with long-lasting effects on the health and quality of life for
future generations." The committee further found that this damage "can be
presumed to have been deliberate."

According to a search of the Nexis database, no major U.S. newspaper,
magazine, television show or wire service has reported on the COE's
suggestion that NATO countries deliberately violated international law.

Despite questions raised by veterans, health researchers and international
organizations like the UN, NATO's use of DU in Kosovo has received almost no
sustained media attention, either during or after the war. One wartime
report on ABC's Nightline (4/1/99) criticized Serbian state media's coverage
of the conflict, highlighting what it described as "this astonishing claim"
from a Belgrade news report: "They [NATO forces] even use radioactive
weapons...which are forbidden by the Geneva Convention."

Astonishing, perhaps, but true; at the time, the Pentagon had already
admitted using DU in Kosovo. As for the possibility that NATO violated the
Geneva Conventions, ABC has never returned to it.


For more information about depleted uranium, see:

The Military Toxics Project's page on DU:
http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/DU_Titlepage/DU_Titlepage.htm

The National Gulf War Resources Center's DU Link:
http://www.ngwrc.org/Dulink/du_link.htm

See also FAIR's April 1999 alert on DU in Kosovo:
http://www.fair.org/activism/depleted-uranium.html

                               ----------

Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to
everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
documented example of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of
your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to us
at: fair@fair.org .

FAIR ON THE AIR: FAIR's founder Jeff Cohen is a regular panelist on the Fox
News Channel's "Fox News Watch," which airs which airs Saturdays at 7 pm and
Sundays at 11 am (Eastern Standard Time). Check your local listings.

FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 120 stations in
the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit
http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html .

Please support FAIR by subscribing to our bimonthly magazine, Extra!
For more information, go to:
http://www.fair.org/extra/subscribe.html . Or call 1-800-847-3993.

FAIR's INTERNSHIP PROGRAM: FAIR accepts internship applications for its New
York office on a rolling basis. For more information, please e-mail Peter
Hart (phart@fair.org)

You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org , or by
sending a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name" command to
LISTSERV@AMERICAN.EDU . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.

You may leave the list at any time-- just send a message with "SIGNOFF
FAIR-L" in the body to: LISTSERV@AMERICAN.EDU .

                                  FAIR
                             (212) 633-6700
                          http://www.fair.org/
                          E-mail: fair@fair.org

list administrators: FAIR-L-request@american.edu


-----Original Message-----
From: franka@fiu.edu <franka@fiu.edu>
To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Cc: franka@fiu.edu <franka@fiu.edu>
Date: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:22 AM
Subject: DU in the Media


>Since the new year, stories about the DU controversy have been running
>almost daily in every major British newspaper, with the Guardian
>(1/8/01) and Independent (1/6/01) each running editorials calling for a
>NATO investigation into DU's health effects. Altogether, the London
>Independent has run 14 original articles; the London Times has run 12; the
>Daily Telegraph has run 10; and the Guardian and its Sunday paper, the
>Observer, have run eight.
>
>Meanwhile, in the U.S.-- the country most responsible by far for DU
>contamination-- newspapers have relegated most of their coverage to news
>briefs and short wire stories. The only U.S. newspaper in the Nexis
>media database to have run an editorial on the current controversy is the
>Seattle  Times (1/6/01). Big picture questions about the extensive use of
DU
>since the Gulf War, its lasting impact on civilian populations and the
record
>of official deception around DU have been largely ignored in both print and
>broadcast reports.
>
>Apart from small wire stories, the New York Times has run only three
>original pieces on the current DU controversy. The Washington Post and
>Chicago Tribune have each run two original stories on the topic, while
>the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and Christian Science Monitor have run one
>apiece. Besides a sprinkling of news briefs and short wire service stories
in
>papers across the country (one of the most widely used was the Associated
>Press' January 5 piece noting "many medical experts"  are "skeptical"...
>
>[Since this was written the NYT and ABC have finally come around to
>giving the matter some attention, only to dismiss it - AGF]
>
>
>
>
>    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>                 ANDRE  GUNDER  FRANK
>
>         1601 SW  83rd Avenue, Miami, FL.  33155 USA
>      Tel: 1-305-266  0311   Fax:  1-305  266 0799
>             E-Mail :  franka@fiu.edu
>   Web/Home Page:  http://csf.colorado.edu/archive/agfrank
>
>
>
>
>