Forum

joe emersberger

RE: (McCarthy, 'Suspend military aid to Israel, Amnesty urges Obama after detailing US weapons used in Gaza,' The Guardian, February 23, 2009; http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/23/military-aid-israel-amnesty)

This article falsely reports that Amnesty International has accused Iran of arming Hamas. Medialens has pointed this error out to you.[1] Amnesty made no such claim. Why has this not been corrected?

The non-response Medialens describes is similar to what I and others have encountered when we have pointed out falsehoods that Rory Carroll has published. For example Carroll recently reported that a spike in South American cocaine production was due to increases in Peru and Bolivia. Carroll also claimed that Hugo Chavez threatened to use the military to annul the electoral gains of his opponents after regional elections in November of 2008. [2]

Mr. Monbiot:

You write for the Guardian. Why don't you speak out about this clear pattern of the Guardian ignoring extremely important factual errors?

Joe Emersberger

[1] http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/20905

[2] see http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2955

for David Sketchley's rebuttal of Carroll's assertion that Cocaine production spiked because of Peru and Bolivia

See the letters archived here about Carroll's ridiculously biased - and at time flagrantly dishonest - reporting about Venezuela:
http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2664

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPLY FROM BUTTERWORTH

I replied to the editor of media lens last week. This is what I said:

"Thank you for your email of 23 February addressed to Rory McCarthy and
cc’d to me. I apologise for the delay in responding. The delay is mine,
rather than the journalist’s - he responded with his comments immediately.

The article concerned an Amnesty International report about the weaponry
used in the Gaza war earlier this year called “Fuelling conflict: foreign
arms supplies to Israel/Gaza”.

You complain about this sentence fragment:

"For their part, Palestinian militants in Gaza were arming themselves with
'unsophisticated weapons' including rockets made in Russia, Iran and China,
it said."

In fact, the complete sentence reads:

"For their part, Palestinian militants in Gaza were arming themselves with
‘unsophisticated weapons’ including rockets made in Russia, Iran and China
and bought from ‘clandestine sources’, it said."

The journalist did not, as you suggest, make any allegations about who
directly supplied the weapons to Hamas or other Palestinian groups - he
attributed the supply to "clandestine sources", which is what the Amnesty
report said:

"Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have smuggled small arms, light
weapons, rockets and rocket components into Gaza, using tunnels from Egypt
into Gaza; this weaponry has been acquired from clandestine sources." (page
30)

The journalist tells me that in an accompanying press release Amnesty
stated:

"Meanwhile, in southern Israel, Amnesty saw the remains of “Qassam”, Grad,
and other indiscriminate rockets fired by Hamas and other Palestinian armed
groups against civilian areas. These unsophisticated weapons - smuggled
into Gaza or constructed from components secretly brought in from abroad -
cannot be aimed accurately and do not compare with Israeli weaponry, but
have nevertheless caused several Israeli civilian deaths and injuries, and
have damaged civilian property. As Amnesty’s report shows, this weaponry is
originally made in Russia (or the Soviet Union), Iran or reportedly China,
but actually acquired from clandestine sources."

The article does not say or suggest that Amnesty alleges that weapons were
acquired directly from the countries mentioned. I do not consider that it
is misleading or that a correction is required."

The editor of medialens has responded asking whether an earlier version of
the article was published. I wasn't in the office last week, but will see
what I can find out.

With regard to the Rory Carroll piece - this was corrected on 13 March. He
has explained to me that the error was introduced when the story he filed
was edited into two separate articles. The correction is appended to the
top of the online article which you can find here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/09/cocaine-production-united-nations-summit

Regards

Siobhain Butterworth

REPLY FROM McCARTHY

Dear Joe,

Thanks for your email.

Let's start with the facts, shall we? My article did not say that Amnesty
accused Iran of arming Hamas.

Media Lens claimed I wrote in my article of February 23: "For their part,
Palestinian militants in Gaza were arming themselves with ‘unsophisticated
weapons’ including rockets made in Russia, Iran and China, it said.”

However, that's not what I wrote.

This is what my sentence actually said: "For their part, Palestinian
militants in Gaza were arming themselves with "unsophisticated weapons"
including rockets made in Russia, Iran and China and bought from
"clandestine sources", it said."

Nowhere in the article did I say that Iran directly supplied weapons to
Hamas. Just because the weapon was Iranian made does not necessarily mean
Iran gave it directly to Hamas.

Why not check for yourself?

My reports:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/23/military-aid-israel-amnesty (in
the paper)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/23/israel-arms-embargo-gaza (on
the web)

And here's what Amnesty said about Iranian arms and Hamas:

Page 30 of the Amnesty report states:

"Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have smuggled small arms, light
weapons, rockets and rocket components into Gaza, using tunnels from Egypt
into Gaza; this weaponry has been acquired from clandestine sources."

Furthermore, in an accompanying press release, Amnesty stated:

"Meanwhile, in southern Israel, Amnesty saw the remains of “Qassam”, Grad,
and other indiscriminate rockets fired by Hamas and other Palestinian armed
groups against civilian areas. These unsophisticated weapons - smuggled
into Gaza or constructed from components secretly brought in from abroad -
cannot be aimed accurately and do not compare with Israeli weaponry, but
have nevertheless caused several Israeli civilian deaths and injuries, and
have damaged civilian property. As Amnesty’s report shows, this weaponry is
originally made in Russia (or the Soviet Union), Iran or reportedly China,
but actually acquired from clandestine sources."

Why not check for yourself?

Amnesty's press release:
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18082

Amnesty's full report:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/012/2009/en

I hope that helps

Kind regards,

Rory McCarthy
Jerusalem correspondent
The Guardian

Dear Siobhain Butterworth.
Thanks for replying (the first ever from you I believe after several attemps). I suspect the editors of Medialens were quoting from an outdated version of the webpage in question. I hope you can soon confirm if this was the case.

The quote you and Rory McCarthy supplied is not nearly as bad what Medialens quoted in their alert. However, even the quote you supplied leaves question marks about whether or not Amnesty is claiming that Iran is indirectly supplying Hamas (i.e, is Iran involved with the "clandestine sources"?).

Had the article included the following quote from Amnesty then the issue would have been clarified completely:

""There have been several reports that Iran has provided military equipment and munitions, including rockets, to Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups but Amnesty International has not seen any evidence to verify these allegations."

Moreover, as Medialens pointed out, Amnesty does not really claim to know where the weapons were manufactured

"Amnesty had merely cited the publication 'Janes Defence Weekly' and was not itself in a position to verify the claims. Worse for the Guardian, as the Amnesty report made clear, the claims actually originate from Israeli and Egyptian security and police sources. Such claims should be treated with extreme caution and, at the very least, be correctly attributed by the Guardian."

As for the Rory Carroll article I glad you corrected the erroneous claim about cocaine production in South America. However, there are others that should be corrected.

1) the claim that Chavez threatened to use the military the reverse the outcome of regional elections
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/24/venezuela-regional-elections
He had in fact said that he would not sit idly by if some of his victorious opponents attempted another coup.

2) the claim that Chavez said at a rally ""Go to hell a hundred times, f*****g Yankees,"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/12/venezuela.usa
a mistranslation of ""Yanquis de mierda""

3)"Chávez loses bid to rule until 2050"
by Rory Carroll in Caracas
Monday December 3, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2221013,00.html

Admittedly, the headline may not be Carroll's doing but it is grossly inaccurate - as you can learn even by reading the article. Venezuelans did not vote down a proposal to let Chavez be president until 2050.

4) The Long Slide by Rory Carroll
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/17/venezuela.hugo.chavez
". In 2002, business, church and army leaders briefly ousted Chávez in a coup tacitly backed by the Bush administration."

There was nothing tacit about US support for the coup. The Bush administration openly applauded the coup and peddled the lie that Chavez had resigned even though US Intelligence had detailed knowledge of the planning for the coup.Freedom of Information Act requests have shown that the US funded groups involved in the coup before and after it took place,[See Eva Gollinger "The Chavez Code" ]

Joe Emersberger

joe emersberger

RE: Honduras warned of sanctions over coup; July 3, 2009

Rory Carroll writes

"Congress, the supreme court, the army and the president's own party approved the overthrow in response to the leftist leader's attempt to change the constitution to extend term limits, a strategy pioneered by his ally and mentor, the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez."

This is false. Zelaya was about to hold a non-binding referendum which would have asked Hondurans if they support the election of Constituent Assembly empowered to change the constitution.

The "strategy" Hugo Chavez pioneered is basically the one that follows

1) a vote on whether or not to elect a Constituent Assembly to change the constitution
2) The election of a Constituent Assembly empowered to change the constitution
3) a referendum to ratify the new constitution

The corporate media routinely distorts this very democratic strategy as Chavez (or Correa or Morales and now Zelaya) unilaterally rewriting the constitution.

Zelaya was attempting step 1.

This is not difficult to report accurately. The fact that it is not reported accurately suggests something worse than carelessness is involved.

Joe Emersberger

joe emersberger

RE: Pablo Escobar's fugitive hippo shot dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/14/hunters-kill-escobar-fugitive-hippo

Mr. Carroll:
Based on your article about Pablo Escobar's hippo it seems you are struggling to find something important to report about Colombia. Why not a statement by Amnesty International yesterday? [1] It says "Around 380,000 people were displaced only in 2008, which means an increase of 24 percent compared to 2007" Or why not mention that the first case tried in Colombian courts based on evidence obtained from the "magic laptops" was just dismissed for lack of evidence? [2] You might also inform you readers about the Colombian army's PR campaign that asks Colombians to forget about the fact that "a thousand members of the armed forces are suspected of having murdered civilians to make the war against illegal armed groups look more effective and receive rewards."
Joe Emersberger

[1] http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/5014-amnesty-international-denounces-significant-increase-of-displaced-in-colombia.html
[2] http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/5009-first-farc-politic-case-dropped.html
[3] http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/5015-army-asks-colombians-to-forget-about-false-positives.html

joe emersberger

email to Rory Carroll re Globovision boss suporting coup in Honduras

Mr. Carroll

Guillermo Zuloaga told reporters

""El gobierno de Micheletti está ajustado a la constitucion, y nosotros quisiéramos, nos encantaría que aquí en Venezuela se respetara la Constitución como se está respetando en Honduras". [1]

Translation

"Micheletti's government is following the constitution and we wish, we would love it if in Venezuela the constitution would be respected as it is being respected in Honduras."

In fact, not only is this enthusiastic support for the coup in Honduras but it appears to be a thinly veiled wish for a another coup in Venezuela.

Will you be reporting this?

Joe Emersberger

[1] http://www.aporrea.org/tiburon/n138821

joe emersberger

email to Rory Carroll re recent articles on Cuba
Posted by emersberger on October 29, 2009, 4:17 am

RE: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/audio/2009/oct/27/juanita-castro-cuba-rory-carroll

Mr. Carroll:

Your recent articles on Cuba make no mention of US backed terrorism against Cubans - or make mention of Luis Posada Carriles -the most infamous US backed terrorist. The case of Posada Carriles is especially significant because he openly bragged to the New York Times about attacks that killed an Italian tourist.

In other words, the Bush and Obama administrations continue to harbour a known terrorist. There is no way to dispute this fact.

Posada Carriles is also strongly implicated in the bombing of a Cuban commercial airliner in which 73 people were killed and in supporting US backed death squads in Central America.

The US terror campaign against Cuba has been going on for decades.
According to Fidel CAstro - one attack - weeks after the missile crisis - resulted in the death of four hundred workers inside a blown up factory.[1]

Should you not mention the US terror campaign against Cubans, not just some assassination attempts against Castro?

Joe Emersberger

[1] for details about the following articles by Chomsky - one of the few people to dare write about this:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199809--.htm

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm

joe emersberger

RE:'Villain' of Brazil-Paraguay war was misunderstood hero, says new book
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/08/eliza-lynch-paraguay-brazil

Mr. Carroll,
Your article on the Brazilian led war on Paraguay in 1865 failed to point out that it was an monstrous crime carried out to benefit British business interests.

In his "Open Veins of Latin America" Eduardo Galeano discusses this war in significant detail. Bear in mind that Galeano's book was originally published in 1971. Much of what he discussed has been known for quite some time and is worth quoting at length.

Galeano wrote

"The US agent Hopkins informed his government in 1845 that in Paraguay there is no child who could not read and write...When the invaders appeared on the horizon in 1865, Paraguay had telegraph, a railroad, and numerous factories manufacturing construction materials, textiles, linens, ponchos, paper and ink, crockery and gunpowder.....Paraguay was wealthy enough to carry out great public works without recourse to foreign capital. It did not owe one penny abroad, yet was able to maintain the best army in South America, hire British technicians to serve the state instead of putting the state at their service, and send some university students to finish their studies in Europe. The economic surplus from agricultural production was not squandered by an oligarchy (which did not exist); nor did it pass into the pockets of middle men and loan sharks, or swell the profits of the British Empire's freight and insurance men....

British commerce did not hide its concern, not only because the last bastion of national resistance in the heart of the continent seemed invulnerable, but also and especially because of the dangerous example set to its neighbors by Paraguayan obstinacy. Latin America's most progressive country was building its future without foreign investment, without British bank loans, and without the blessings of free trade....

Britain's minister in Buenos Aires, Edward Thorton, played a substantial role preparing the war. When it was about to break out , he participated as a government advisor in Argentine cabinet meetings, sitting beside President Mitre. The web of provocations and deceptions, which ended with a Brazilian-Argentine agreement that sealed Paraguay's fate, was woven under Thorton's fatherly gaze...

In September 1864, Thorton sent a long confidential report to London, datelined Asuncion. He described Paraguay as Dante described the inferno, but put stress where it belonged

'Import duties on nearly all articles are 20 or 25 percent...the duty that is paid often amounts to 40 to 45 percent of the invoice price.'

The invaders came to redeem the Paraguyan people, and exterminate them. When the war began , Paraguya had almost as large a population as Argentine. Only 250,000, less than one-sixth, survived in 1870. It was a triumph of civilization. The victors, ruined by the enormous cost of the crimes, fell back into the arms of British bankers who had financed the adventure....The war was hardly over when the first foreign loans in Paraguay's history fell upon the smoking ruins. It was, of course, British."

Not surprising that "British chroniclers" among others, have consistently lied about this war.

Joe Emersberger