Re: lies, damn lies and... media coverage of NATO bombing (fwd)

> Date:          Tue, 18 May 1999 17:49:22 -0400 (EDT)
> Reply-to:      jnaiman@acs.ryerson.ca
> From:          Joanne Naiman <jnaiman@acs.ryerson.ca>
> To:            PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK <psn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Subject:       lies, damn lies and... media coverage of NATO bombing (fwd)

> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 09:38:57 -0400
> From: Eric Fawcett <fawcett@physics.utoronto.ca>
> To: sfp lists <sfpcan@physics.utoronto.ca>, sfpint@physics.utoronto.ca,
>     sfpont@physics.utoronto.ca, sfptor@physics.utoronto.ca
> Subject: sfp-70: lies, damn lies and... media coverage of NATO bombing
> 
> 
> From: Jared Israel <jaredi@aol.com>
> 
> HOW NATO & THE MEDIA MISREPRESENTED THE CHINESE EMBASSY BOMBING
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Opponents of the war against Serbia argue that much of what passes for
> news these days is really a kind of war propaganda, that NATO puts out
> misinformation and the media disseminates the stuff uncritically.
> 
> A case in point is the coverage of the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in
> Belgrade.  I download wire service reports from the AOL world news
> database (accessible at aol://4344:30.WORLD.338815.464449182 if you are an
> AOL member.  This allows me to see exactly how wire services and
> newspapers change the news from hour to hour.  Very instructive for
> studying how misinformation is disseminated.
> 
> Studying misinformation is a special interest of mine. If you'd like to
> see some of my previous work in this area, send me a note and I'll email
> you The Emperor's Clothes, which analyzes how the NY Times misinformed its
> readers about the bombing of a Sudanese pill factory in August, 1998.
> 
> Story #1: SORRY, WRONG BUILDING
> ~~~~~~~~
> NATO spokesman Jamie Shea's first response to the Embassy bombing was a)
> to apologize and b) to explain that the NATO missiles had gone astray.
> NATO had intended to hit a building across the street, a building that
> houses what Shea called the "Federal Directory for the Supply and
> Procurement." Said Shea "I understand that the two buildings are close
> together." (Reuters, May 8) 
> 
> But in fact the Chinese Embassy is in fact located in the middle of a park
> in a residential neighborhood and:  "The embassy stands alone in its own
> grounds surrounded by grassy open space on three sides.  Rows of high-rise
> apartment blocs are located 200 (600 feet) metres away and a line of
> shops, offices and apartments sits about 150 meters (450 feet) away on the
> other side of a wide tree-lined avenue, [called]...Cherry Tree Street."
> (Reuters, May 8)
> 
> 
> Story #2: NEARBY BUILDING?  WHAT NEARBY BUILDING?  
> ~~~~~~~~ 
> Apparently realizing that a "Federal Directory for the Supply an
>  Procurement" would not be placed in an apartment complex -- or on a 1000
> foot lawn - NATO spun a new story a few hours later:  "Three NATO guided
> bombs which slammed into the Chinese embassy in Belgrade overnight struck
> precisely at the coordinates programmed into them, but it was not the
> building NATO believed it to be. They hit bang on the three aim points
> they were given," a military source said.  [NATO military spokesman
> General Walter] Jertz declined to say what sort of weapon hit the Chinese
> embassy, except that it was 'smart' or guided munitions and not free-fall
> bombs. He denied planners were 'using old maps, wrong maps.' (Reuters, May 8)
> 
> COMMENT:  Three smart missiles or bombs hit the three locations they were
> supposed to hit.  It was a misidentified target.  And the Pilot(s) wasn't
> misled by old or bad maps.  On the face of it, what is the likelihood of
> NATO picking target coordinates that just happen to coincide with three
> apartments occupied by journalists?  I mean, one computer-guided bomb
> destroying a journalist's home would not be unlikely.  But three hitting
> three journalists' homes?
> 
> --TOO MANY SPOKESMEN
> In the same Reuters story, another expert suggests it would be highly
> unlikely for NATO to make the kind of mistake Jertz is suggesting:  
> "Target identification and pilot preparation would have been extensive in
> this case, because of the military importance of the intended target and
> because Belgrade is heavily defended by Serb forces" [Air Force Maj. Gen.  
> Charles Wald, a strategic planner for the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said at a
> briefing for reporters."  "The way targeting works ... the higher the
> threat, the more valued the target, the more time you would study it.  
> The more time you have to study it, the better,' Wald said."
> Based on what Wald is saying here, isn't it pretty much unlikely that an
> embassy would be mistaken for a "Federal Directory for the Supply and
> Procurement?" 
> 
> --TOO MANY PLACES
> Which brings us to yet another problem.  Because in the same MAY 8 Reuters
> Story the name of the place which NATO intended to bomb mysteriously
> changes -- not once but twice.  Read the following quote from General
> Jertz carefully: "NATO went after the target because it thought it was the
> weapons warehouse of the Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement. 
> The information we had was that in this building was the headquarters of
> the Directorate, and we have no evidence that we were misled."
> 
> So now the thing they thought they were bombing was:
> a) the Federal Directory for the Supply and Procurement;
> b) Weapons warehouse of the Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement;  
> and
> c) the headquarters of the Directorate.
> 
> Story #3: TOO MANY MISSILES
> ~~~~~~~~
> NATO's next spin-control effort was an attempt to simplify things. 
> Retelling the story again a bit later on the 8th, AP reported that: 
> "The precision-guided weapon that hit the Chinese embassy in Belgrade
> apparently did just what it was told." 
> 
> COMMENT: One weapon. That does make things more believable, unless of
> course the reader has seen the previous stories that refer to Three
> missiles.  Since few people read multiple news stories about the same
> topic, and even fewer read them carefully, moving from three to one
> missile is a pretty safe gambit.  But the problem still remains: how could
> NATO targeteers, pouring over their maps, not notice the label CHINESE
> EMBASSY on a building they were planning to bomb?
> 
> Story #4: IT WAS THE MAPS! 
> NATO's answer: switch positions on the map question. 
> What was the source of 'the erroneous B-2 bomber attack, which dropped
> several satellite-guided bombs on the embassy?'
> 
> Here's the latest explanation:  "In mistakenly targeting the Chinese
> Embassy in Belgrade Friday night, U.S. intelligence officials were working
> from an outdated map issued before China built its diplomatic compound
> several years ago," American and NATO authorities said next. "The tragic
> and embarrassing truth is that our maps simply did not show the Chinese
> Embassy anywhere in that vicinity," a senior NATO official said.
> (Washington Post, May 10)
> 
> COMMENT: Let's consider the implications of what we've just read. 
> --First, the Post accepts without question NATO's assertion that the
> embassy bombing was accidental.  Indeed the Post doesn't mention the
> highly newsworthy fact that the news media stories are so mutually
> contradictory.  Doesn't that tell us something about these news agencies,
> about their attitude toward NATO and this war?  That they are really part
> of NATO's public relations effort, dutifully reporting whatever they are
> told without pointing out the implications of NATO's ever-evolving
> explanations.
> --Second, the claim that using 'old maps' was the problem flatly
> contradicts an equally confident assertion made about 36 hours earlier by
> NATO spokesman, General Jertz. You remember: "He [that is., Gen. Jertz]
> denied planners were 'using old maps, wrong maps.'" (Reuters, May 8)
> --Third, consider the phrase "outdated map issued before China built its
> diplomatic compound several years ago." This clearly refers to PAPER maps. 
> 
> Now is it believable that NATO would be working off old paper maps of
> Belgrade?  What's the matter, they can't afford computers? They have no
> technical staff?  We are after all talking about the combined armed forces
> of the U.S. and most of Europe. The whole focus of their attack on Serbia
> is aerial bombardment. Aerial bombardment depends primarily on maps and
> intelligence. Doesn't it fly in the face of rudimentary common sense --
> indeed of sanity -- to believe that this military force would have
> anything but the most sophisticated mapping facilities, updated with
> satellite photos and local intelligence reports hourly, all of it in
> computerized war rooms with giant screens, scores of technical personnel,
> etc., etc.  And isn't it equally obvious, that that one thing such an
> armed force would have at its finger tips would be exact information about
> sensitive installations -- such as diplomatic facilities -- precisely to
> make sure they did not get bombed.
> 
> Unless of course NATO wanted them to be bombed!
> And of all the diplomatic facilities in all of Yugoslavia, wouldn't the
> one to which NATO would pay the most attention be the Chinese Embassy in
> Belgrade - both because of China's immense world-importance and because it
> is Belgrade's chief ally. Of course NATO had up to date maps of the area
> around the Chinese Embassy.  And of every square inch inside the Embassy
> as well.
> 
> --Fourth, since NATO claims it decided to bomb the Embassy because of what
> the targeteers saw on these 'old maps' -- just what did the targeteers
> see?  We are told they didn't see the Embassy.  Did they see something
> else they wanted to attack and destroy?  Just what was this something
> else?  Was it a building which housed some military facility?  In the
> middle of a 1000 foot lawn in a residential section of the city?  And if
> there is such a map with such a building, why doesn't NATO produce this
> ancient document, and show it to us?
> --And fifth: did you notice we're talking about multiple missiles again? 
> 
> LET US NOW REVIEW NATO'S STORIES
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> According to NATO there were three --
>  NO, there was only one smart bomb that hit the Chinese Embassy by mistake
> because it missed a building across the street that houses the "Federal
> Supply and Procurement Office" --
>  NO, that wasn't the problem.  The missiles (because we're back to three
> missiles again)  didn't miss -- they hit right on target except it turned
> out the target was all wrong, it wasn't the Federal Supply and Procurement
> Office at all, it was the Chinese Embassy and somehow the targeteers got
> it all confused but one thing is definite: the mix-up was not the result
> of using old maps. 
>  NO, that's not right either because if a target is important a great deal
> of care is taken, and given that this was such an important target, even
> more care would be taken to make sure it really was the a) Federal
> Directory for the Supply and Procurement and
>  NO, that should be the b) Weapons Warehouse of the Federal Directorate
> for Supply and Procurement,
>  NO, that isn't right either it wasn't just a warehouse, it was the c) 
> HEADQUARTERS of the Directorate and -
>  NO!  Forget everything I've said so far.  It was the maps. The maps were
> very old so you couldn't tell that the building on that site was an
> Embassy.  And there were three missiles, of course -- who ever said
> anything about there only being one? 
> 
> POSTSCRIPT: A PARK, AND OTHER MILITARY TARGETS
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> This writer has just spoken to a Serbian gentlemen whose family lives a
> few blocks from the Embassy.  He says the Embassy was built 4 or 5 years
> ago and that prior to the building of the Embassy, the only thing there
> was: a park - trees and grass.  Therefore the notion that NATO could
> possess a map drawn before the Chinese Embassy was built which showed any
> building occupying the land on which the Embassy now stands is simply
> impossible.  There was nothing there but trees and grass.
> 
> Therefore NATO is lying, and we might resort for an explanation to that
> offered by a Chinese intellectual, currently at Harvard's Kennedy Institute, 
> who spoke on May 8th at the weekly Boston anti-war rally (held at 3:00
> every Sat. in Copley Square).
> 
> The man had conferred with people overseas and thus had direct knowledge
> of the attack on the Chinese Embassy.  He said three missiles had struck
> the Embassy compound, hitting three apartments where one or both adult
> family members was a journalist.  The missiles apparently carried a light
> explosive charge. Clearly, he said, the goal was to punish China for
> sympathizing with the Yugoslav people against NATO.  More specifically,
> the intention was to terrorize Chinese newspeople in Yugoslavia, thus
> silencing yet another non-NATO information source.
> 
> Does that seem too nightmarish to be true?  Keep in mind, NATO has
> consistently bombed Serbian news outlets with the stated intention of
> silencing sources of "lying propaganda." Why would it be so far-fetched
> for them to do the same to Chinese newspeople?
> 
> Perhaps NATO wants to silence ALL non-NATO reporting on the war, even at
> the risk of starting World War III. Or perhaps NATO, or a part of NATO,
> such as the U.S. government, wants to provoke a fight with China before
> China gets too strong to be crushed? This was a high-tech execution.  
> What will NATO do next? 
> 
> Note to reader: If you wish to see the complete text of the articles I
> have quoted from, drop me a line and I'll be glad to send them to you. 
> Best regards,
> Jared  Israel  <jaredi@aol.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>