FAIR Alert: Reviving Cold War Reporting on Nicaragua

[G_j]

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2478

ACTION ALERT:
Reviving Cold War Reporting on Nicaragua

April 5, 2005

As the Bush administration carries out what the New York Times (4/5/05)
describes as a "concerted effort" to block the return of the left-wing
Sandinista party to power in Nicaragua, U.S. media are returning to the
kind of distorted reporting on Nicaragua that characterized coverage
during Washington's war against that country in the 1980s. The New York
Times' April 5 article on the administration's anti-Sandinista campaign
provides a prime example of this one-sided and inaccurate media treatment.

The article, by Ginger Thompson, characterized the U.S. attempt to
overthrow the Sandinista government as part of "the global struggle
against Communism"-- though Nicaragua under the Sandinistas had a mixed
economy, multiple opposition parties and a very active opposition press,
features that were not found in actual Communist countries. She refers to
Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista president of Nicaragua, as a "revolutionary
strongman," even though he was elected to the presidency in 1984 with 67
percent of the vote, in balloting that international observers found to be
"free, fair and hotly contested" (Extra!, 10-11/87).

Referring to the Sandinista-led government of the 1980s and the
U.S.-sponsored Contra rebels as opposing "armies," Thompson wrote, "The
armies fought each other to a standstill, until both sides agreed to
elections in 1990, which Mr. Ortega lost." This summary leaves out the
election that Ortega won in 1984, and wrongly suggests that the 1990
elections were held because of Contra pressure, when the Nicaraguan
constitution at that time required elections to be held every six years.
(That sentence also implies that the Contras directed their fight against
the Nicaraguan army, although in fact they chiefly targeted civilians and
civilian infrastructure-- see Nicaragua: The Price of Intervention, Peter
Kornbluh, pp. 39-50.)

Though the article's focus is on the United States' opposition to Ortega,
Ortega is never quoted; the article says that he "did not accept several
requests for an interview." Despite a reference to "extensive talks with
Mr. Ortega's supporters," no members of this group are quoted either. (A
supporter of a Sandinista rival to Ortega is quoted at the end of the
piece, explaining why in his view Ortega is not likely to ever be
re-elected.)

The piece does, however, repeatedly quote an anonymous "senior State
Department official" who makes unsubstantiated charges about Ortega and
the Sandinistas (e.g., "The Sandinista Party that Daniel Ortega represents
is not a democratic party," the Sandinistas are using their influence to
"extort the country.").

New York Times policy supposedly discourages the use of anonymous sources.
"We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal
or partisan attack," a February 25, 2004 statement released by the paper
declared. "If pejorative opinions are worth reporting and cannot be
specifically attributed, they may be paraphrased or described after
thorough discussion between writer and editor." When an anonymous source
is attacking an official enemy, it appears, the rules do not apply.


ACTION: Please contact the New York Times and urge them to correct the
inaccurate history of Nicaragua contained in this article. Encourage the
paper to quote more than one side of a story, even when reporting on
people or parties that are seen as enemies by the U.S. State Department.

CONTACT:
New York Times
Daniel Okrent, Public Editor
mailto:[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you
maintain a polite tone. Please cc [e-mail] with your correspondence.

[G_j]

1. kickity

[annabanana]

2. Everyone here who remembers Iran-Contra should drop a note

to the NYT and let them know that we remember it. The climate that made it possible was fostered by exactly this kind of slimy coverage. Noriega may have been kicked "upstairs", but the stink remains.

[G_j]

3. "The climate that made it possible was fostered

by exactly this kind of slimy coverage."

Exactly, and it just gets worse.

[annabanana]

4. kick for the afternooners........n/t