On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 05:04:32PM -0700, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
> Does anyone want to reassure me that my government couldn't
> possibly have bombed the Chinese embassy on purpose?
>
> - Joe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kelley
> To: pulp-culture@Infothecary.org
> Subject: US Media overlook Embassy Bombing
> off the FAIR-L list
>
> FAIR-L
> Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
> Media analysis, critiques and news reports
>
> U.S. Media Overlook Expose on Chinese Embassy Bombing
>
> October 22, 1999
>
> A detailed investigative article in the October 17 London Observer reported
> that NATO deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade last May,
> after discovering that the embassy was relaying Yugoslav military radio
> signals.
>
> The report contradicted the public assurances of NATO leaders that the
> missile attack had been an accident. The Observer's sources included "a
> flight controller operating in Naples, an intelligence officer monitoring
> Yugoslav radio traffic from Macedonia and a senior [NATO] headquarters
> officer in Brussels."
>
> So far, the reaction in the mainstream U.S. media has been a deafening
> silence. To date, none of America's three major network evening news
> programs has mentioned the Observer's findings. Neither has the New York
> Times or USA Today, even though the story was covered by AP, Reuters and
> other major wires. The Washington Post relegated the story to a 90-word news
> brief in its "World Briefing" (10/18/99), under the headline "NATO Denies
> Story on Embassy Bombing."
>
> By contrast, the story appeared in England not only in the Observer and its
> sister paper, the Guardian (10/17/99), but also in their leading rival, the
> Times of London, which ran a follow-up article on the official reaction the
> next day (10/18/99). The Globe and Mail, Canada's most prestigious paper,
> ran the full Reuters account prominently in its international section
> (10/18/99). So did the Times of India, the Sydney Morning Herald and the
> Irish Times (all 10/18/99). The prominent Danish daily Politiken, which
> collaborated with the Observer on the investigation, was on strike, but ran
> the story on its website.
>
> The difference in perspective with which American journalists have greeted
> this story can be observed by comparing the headlines over several
> international news agencies' dispatches about the Observer expose:
>
> Reuters (U.K.): "NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately--UK Paper"
> (10/18/99).
>
> Agence France Presse (France): "NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately:
> Report" (10/18/99).
>
> Deutche Presse-Agentur (Germany): "NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately,
> Observer Claims" (10/18/99).
>
> Associated Press (U.S.): "NATO Denies Deliberate Embassy Hit."
>
> The U.S. media may today be uninterested in evidence that the attack was
> deliberate, but they had no trouble last May accepting NATO's explanation
> that the bombing was a mistake. Even before U.S. officials emerged with a
> full account of how the embassy could have been "mistakenly" targeted--an
> "outdated map" of Belgrade played a prominent role in the official
> explanation--the U.S. media began regularly referring, without evidence, to
> the "accidental bombing" of the embassy.
>
> When Chinese officials disputed the U.S. account, protesting that the attack
> could not have been a mistake, establishment journalists immediately took
> sides in this debate. New York Times diplomatic correspondent Jane Perlez
> (5/10/99) referred to "the accidental bombing, portrayed in China as
> deliberate." A Washington Post editorial (5/17/99) that discussed China's
> reaction to "NATO's unintentional bombing of China's embassy" was indignant
> that the official Chinese press was "milking the bombing for propaganda
> value" by reporting that the missile strike had been intentional. USA Today
> continues to refer to the "accidental bombing" of the embassy (10/20/99).
>
> Since the New York Times hasn't published the new information about the
> embassy attack, it's unclear whether the paper stands by its earlier
> reporting. Since May 7, the Times has referred to the "accidental bombing of
> the Chinese embassy" a total of 20 times. The last reference was in its
> October 17 edition--the day the Observer published its report. Since then,
> the Times has run an AP article on the Chinese president's visit to London
> (10/19/99), which mentioned only that "China broke off talks with Washington
> and the European Union after NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in
> Yugoslavia"--taking no stand on the intention behind the attack.
>
> Even before the Observer's expose, there was no lack of evidence that
> China's suspicions were correct. A few days after the bombing, German
> Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder took the highly unusual step of publicly
> questioning NATO's explanation of the attack. "The explanation given by NATO
> on the tragic incident so far is far from enough and the Chinese government
> has every reason to demand a comprehensive, thorough, and in-depth
> investigation into the incident and affix the responsibility for it,"
> Schroeder said in Beijing (AFP, 5/12/99).
>
> The London Daily Telegraph reported in June (6/27/99) that NATO's
> precision-guided missiles "carefully singled out the most sensitive section
> of the embassy complex for attack"--the intelligence directorate. "That's
> exactly why they don't buy our explanation," a Pentagon official was quoted
> as saying.
>
> In July, CIA director George Tenet testified in Congress that out of the 900
> targets struck by NATO during the three-month bombing campaign, only one was
> developed by the CIA: the Chinese Embassy (AP, 7/22/99).
>
> What is perhaps most baffling about the major news outlets' indifference to
> the Chinese embassy story is that the same outlets regularly devote a great
> deal of attention to other stories concerning China and its relations with
> the U.S. Elite media report extensively on China's possible entry into the
> World Trade Organization, the political struggle between its "reformers" and
> conservatives, and allegations of Chinese nuclear spying and electoral
> influence-buying in the U.S. The op-ed pages abound with debates about
> China's intentions toward America: Is the country a threat to be contained
> or an opportunity for trade and investment?
>
> The Times of London noted in an October 21 book review that "the bombing of
> the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade might yet turn out to be an important
> episode in a new Cold War." One might think that a well-sourced
> investigative article in a respected foreign daily providing evidence that
> the bombing was deliberate would be viewed by editors in the United States
> with the same interest they have shown in other aspects of China's relations
> with the West.
>
> ACTION: Please call national and local media and ask them to follow up on
> the Observer's investigation of the China embassy bombing. Mention that news
> outlets should present the idea that the embassy was bombed by accident as a
> claim made by NATO, not an objective fact.
>
> New York Times
> Andrew Rosenthal
> Foreign Editor
> mailto:andyr@nytimes.com
>
> Washington Post
> Jim Hoagland
> Chief Foreign Correspondent
> mailto:hoaglandj@washpost.com
>
> USA Today
> Douglas Stanglin
> World Editor
> mailto:dstanglin@usatoday.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
> Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> http://www.netzero.net/download/index.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. All messages to the
> 'FAIR-L' list will be forwarded to the editor of the list.
>
> Also, please send copies of email correspondence, including any
> responses, to us at: fair@fair.org .
>
> Feel free to spread this message around. Put it on conferences
> where it is appropriate. We depend on word of mouth to get our message
> out, so please let others know about FAIR and this mailing list.
>
> Don't miss a single e-mail from FAIR-L.
>
> You can s*bscribe to FAIR-L at our web site:
> http://www.fair.org/emaillist.html
> Or, you can send a "s*bscribe FAIR-L enter your full name"
> command to LISTSERV@AMERICAN.EDU.
>
> The s*bscriber list is kept confidential, so no need to worry about
> spammers.
>
>
> You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF FAIR-L"
> command to LISTSERV@AMERICAN.EDU.
>
> Please support FAIR by becoming a member.
> You will receive FAIR's magazine, EXTRA! and its newsletter, EXTRA!
> Update. You can become a member by calling 1-800-847-3993 from 9 to
> 5 Eastern Time (be sure to tell them you got the information
> on-line) or by sending $19 with your name and address to:
>
> FAIR/EXTRA! Subscription Service
> P.O. Box 170
> Congers, NY 10920-9930
>
>
> FAIR
> (212) 633-6700
> http://www.fair.org/
> E-mail: fair@fair.org
>
> list administrators: FAIR-L-request@american.edu
>
>
>
-- --b