Please write a note of protest to NYT.
BTW, did any one those palooka clowns called ' Republican Presidential candidates' ever utter a word about "urging stronger measures against Iran" in Iowa?
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 13:09:21 -0500
From: fair@fair.org
To: farida_majid@hotmail.com
Subject: NYT Misleads Readers on Iran Crisis
Having trouble reading this message? Access it on our website: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4454
![Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)]()
Click here to unsubscribe
![]()
BTW, did any one those palooka clowns called ' Republican Presidential candidates' ever utter a word about "urging stronger measures against Iran" in Iowa?
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 13:09:21 -0500
From: fair@fair.org
To: farida_majid@hotmail.com
Subject: NYT Misleads Readers on Iran Crisis
Having trouble reading this message? Access it on our website: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4454
| NYT Misleads Readers on Iran Crisis Paper disappears some inaccurate reporting 1/6/12 In two articles yesterday (1/5/12), the New York Times misled readers about the state of Iran's nuclear program. On the front page, the Times' Steven Erlanger reported this: The threats from Iran, aimed both at the West and at Israel, combined with a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's nuclear program has a military objective, is becoming an important issue in the American presidential campaign. There is no such International Atomic Energy Agency assessment. The IAEA report the Times is mischaracterizing raised questions about the state of the Iranian program, and presented the evidence, mostly years old, that Iran's critics say points towards a weapons program. (This evidence has been challenged by outside analysts--see FAIR Media Advisory, 11/16/11.) But the IAEA report made no firm conclusion that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, and noted that its inspections of Iran's facilities continue to show no diversion of uranium for military purposes. Elsewhere in the Times, readers saw this in a piece by Clifford Krauss about a potential conflict over the Strait of Hormuz: Various Iranian officials in recent weeks have said they would blockade the strait, which is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, if the United States and Europe imposed a tight oil embargo on their country in an effort to thwart its development of nuclear weapons. Again, Iran has said repeatedly and emphatically that they are doing no such thing. Interestingly, the Times has changed the Web version of the Erlanger article, removing the relevant paragraph--but without noting the error. Overstating the case on Iran isn't a new problem at the Times. One story last month (12/8/11) referred matter-of-factly to the "recent public debate in Israel about whether time is running out for a military strike to slow Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon." With tensions between Iran and the United States rising, and Republican presidential candidates agitating for a more confrontational stance, it is imperative that outlets like the New York Times get the story right. If the Times wishes to do better than it did during the run-up to the Iraq War, it should be more careful. ACTION: Contact the New York Times and ask it to investigate and explain the editing of the January 5 front-page article, and to correct both misleading assertions about Iran and nuclear weapons. CONTACT: New York Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane Email: public@nytimes.com Phone: 212-556-7652 |
|
The growth of Christianity during the first centuries of the modern era was phenomenal, especially among the lower orders. People who had nothing on earth and who lived in poverty were promised immense rewards in the after-life – provided they accepted their lot as slaves. This doctrine had an obvious appeal to the downtrodden masses, but it had equally obvious advantages for the ruling class. Eventually, the latter realized this and took the appropriate measures. But all these measures were in vain. The Church continued to thrive despite persecution – and possibly because of it.
For the Labour Party the 2011 general election defeat was the worst since 1928. The main factor for this was the historic low turnout as many workers stayed at home and were not enthused enough by the right-wing leadership of the Labour Party to go out and vote. The turn out was down from (what was considered then a low turnout) 79.46% at the 2008 general election to 73.83%. This was the lowest turnout since 1878!
The Occupy movement has many people looking to past movements to see what we can learn from them that can help us in today's struggles. The period of the 1960s and early 1970s was one of upheaval around the world: May 1968, the Tet Offensive, the revolution in Pakistan, etc. The USA was not exempt from these powerful social movements. In the 1950s, the movement to end Jim Crow segregation helped to spur on movements against the U.S. imperialist war on Vietnam, large strike movements by the working class, and the movements for equal rights for women and the LGBT community.