On October 20, 2005, the United Nations released its report to date about its investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri which occured February 14, 2005. The report implicates Syrian and Lebanese officials, yet several original MSM headlines in the American press, along with TV coverage by CNN, only mention the Syrian connection.
Notably:
Washington Post (Robin Wright and Colum Lynch)
: U.N. Report Sees Syrian Involvement in Hariri’s Death
New York Times (John Kifner and Warren Hoge): Top Syrian Seen as Prime Suspect in Assassination
Bloomberg News: UN Probe of Rafiq Hariri’s Murder Implicates Syrian Military
Los Angeles Times (Maggie Farley): the headline was originally “Report Implicates Syrian, Lebanese Officials in Hariri Slaying” but the online version has now been changed to read U.N. Links Syria to Lebanon Slayings.
CNN: U.N. probe links Syria to Hariri killing
On the other hand, the Associated Press ran with this headline: U.N.: Syria, Lebanon Involved in Slaying
FOX (via AP as well): U.N. Probe Questions Lebanese President
more…
US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, and Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, are already using the UN report to further marginalize Syria. Bolton said absolutely nothing about the Lebanese involvement in a statement today. Rice actually did but, in response to a question about whether the Lebanese president is as much a target as Syria’s, Rice claimed she hasn’t finished reading the UN report – perhaps an indication that Washington is much more interested in slamming Syria’s President Assad.
The UN Security Council is currently considering sanctions against Syria and Rice recently said that military action against Syria has not been ruled out. Syria has dismissed the findings of the UN report.
This is a fast moving story but the headlines involved raise some issues:
1) As stories change, should online media outlets be allowed to change their headlines on the exact same article?
2) Are the media helping to perpetuate Bush administration propaganda against Syria by not headlining Lebanese involvement in the assassination considering that many people only scan headlines to get their news?
3) Who, in the media, can we trust anymore?
Gosh, Catnip, that seems kinda unfair. Probably an oversight by harried headline writers, don’t you think? What else could it mean?
yeah…I guess I should just delete the diary, eh?
🙂
don’t delete it, just change the headline to indicate that SYRIA is to blame.
catnip, you’re usually on the mark, but you’re incorrect here. I speak as a lawyer who has represented many Lebanese and Syrians. Syria has been treating most of Lebanon like conquered territory for 20 years. The Syrian government genuinely is evil. Hariri was a great Lebanese national leader who opposed the Syrian occupation. So the Syrians blew him up, assisted by some Lebanese traitors.
It’s not incorrect for the headlines to emphasize the new red neon arrow pointing at Syria, because that is the actual political implication of this bombshell UN report. NPR has had several good reports on the growing panic in Syria about what would happen with this report. Informed people in both countries have known all year that it was the highest levels of the Syrian government that attacked Hariri. Now that the cat’s out of the bag, there may well be a coup d’etat in Syria, because they’re scared to death of the American army on their borders. It wouldn’t be a bad thing if the Syrian Ba’ath Party was dissolved.
It’s often not wise to automatically assume that an enemy of an enemy is a friend. The Bush saber rattling against Syria–indeed, the fact that the U.S. Army has already been invading Syrian border regions for months–is outrageous and wrong. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Syrian government is one of the few purely totalitarian regimes in the world.
My diary is only about the immediate headlines following the release of the UN report which did also implicate Lebanese officials.
I’ve made no judgment on the political situation by presenting those headlines other to note that the Bush administration is beating the war drums against that country and the MSM seems to be falling in line.
You gave me a 2 for that comment alohaleezy? Why? I only factually explained what my diary was about.
The U.N. International Independent Investigation Commission Report by Detlev Mehlis does mention Lebanese involvement, but it takes pains to emphasize that these were, for intents and purposes, Syrian agents who had infiltrated various Lebanese groups. From the conclusion of the report:
There doesn’t appear to be anything in the report to suggest that any of the Lebanese individuals who were involved in the assassination plot were acting outside the knowledge and direction of Syria. To the extent that there was Lebanese involvement (as there surely was), it was as the agent of the Syrian regime.
…as redacted actually reflect the report better than the original headlines.
The posted conslusions actually make my point for me: pointing at Syrian and Lebanese involvement. From some of the headlines, one gets the impression that only Syria was involved.
I think you missed the whole point here. The point is that the Bushcos want to continue invading the middle east and the MSM is playing the propaganda game with them to further that agenda. No one is saying that Syria is not guilty only that they were not alone in the assasination plot.
Even the Chinese have a headline similar to WaPo;
UN probe links Syria with Hariri murder, but mention the Lebanese involvement in the second paragraph:
Here’s how the Syrians see the report according to the same Chinese bureau:
This just a little while ago from the NYT:
Can they scare up some aluminum tubes for Condi to talk about at the UN? Then perhaps we can do the “shock and awe” thing again. It worked out so well the last time.
…by the U.S. ANYwhere, as ANYone, except as a last resort under direct threat, and I have been for 40+ years. I certainly don’t want to see U.S. troops in Syria or our flyboys and flygirls making an aerial assault or the CIA/NSA or whoever assassinating Syrian leaders.
But this is a United Nations report. And it’s not just the U.S. that is concerned about this. And it’s not just the U.S. that is going to the U.N. for redress. What, for instance, about the Lebanese. Maybe they’ve got a dog in this fight since it was one of theirs who was blown up?
The question is, did high Syrian officials, or elements of its intelligence agencies, conspire to assassinate a foreign leader? If our agencies did that – as they have in the past – we’d be rightfully screaming bloody murder about it. Why let the Syrians off the hook?
The UN would certainly have more credibility if the US (and it’s little guard dog in the Levant) had not conspired to murder people, invaded other countries, and was not generally seen as the International rubber stamp of whatever US wants to do.
US has in fact, publicly declared that it will exterminate anyone it chooses, anywhere, any time.
Certainly no one can object to an independent investigation into Hariri’s death, but neither US (and guard dog) or the UN has positioned themselves favorably for such a task.
While your post outlines very neatly why Operation Syrian Freedom will be received enthusiastically in the US, it also explains why it is unlikely that the enthusiasm will reach beyond US borders, and it is probable that approval will be very low in the Middle East, and the level of Syrian gratitude will be comparable with that found in Iraq.
Having said all that, the project is assured to be a profitable one for the intended beneficiaries in terms of revenue generated, which is, after all, what matters.
…I don’t disagree one iota with your take on U.S. foreign policy, having been in opposition to much of it for all of my adult life. As a nation, especially since the PNACkers took over our foreign policy – but before as well – we don’t have much solid moral ground to stand on. Our unwillingness to submit to the International Criminal Court lowers both our esteem and standing throughout the world.
And, as I made clear from the beginning, I oppose any U.S. military action against Syria, and any black ops against its leaders or infrastructure. If we’re already engaged in that, as a few seem to think, I hope it is soon exposed widely.
Be that as it may, the left has a duty to speak up not just when the United States behaves badly but when anybody does. We do ourselves no favors by assuming that anybody who opposes U.S. policy must be our friend.
I’m still working my way through the report. There are many unanswered questions. But it certainly appears that Syria was involved in this assassination. If so, then those involved deserve punishment as surely as those who lied us in the war with Iraq.
I am just pointing out that it is yet another cost of the doctrine of US exceptionalism.
There is definitely a need for an independent international body to investigate suspicious deaths of this type, whether Hariri, the Syrian minister a week ago, the unusual number of US microbiologists over the past few years, on and on.
And maybe one day, there will be. But under the present circumstances, it is not possible.
It seems an investigative branch of the ICC would be ideal, but when the US can just opt out of any punishment, that can’t work.
So, really, all we have is the UN.
Luckily, Michael Brown is on the case, investigating charges of slowness of response.
😉
But this is a United Nations report. And it’s not just the U.S. that is concerned about this. And it’s not just the U.S. that is going to the U.N. for redress.
The UN and its member countries has made resolution after resolution about Israel for years and I don’t see a lot of pressure being exerted on Israel* as a result.
*Yes, there has been pressure, but not to the point of banging the drums of war in order to “spread freedom” to Israel.
(I may pay for this comment, but the hypocrisy drives me nuts).
I’m not saying you are a hypocrite, MB! As if I would ever say that. I’m pointing at the US administrations.
The ball is in motion.
The majority coalition (FM-PSP-LF-QS-DL) is in full-throttle; If the headlines of Hariri-owned newspaper and Gebran Tueni’s statements are of any indication, their apparent immediate objective is the overthrowing of President Lahhoud. It is already preparing to flex its street muscles this evening, when thousands of young Lebanese are expected to come to Hariri’s shrine and celebrate “The Day Of The Truth”
http://www.beirutspring.com/
Hal C.
Angry Arab gives a piercing critique–long but well worth reading.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The biggest and most suspicious lie of the report: it said in paragraph 19 that: “it is to be regretted that no Member State relayed useable information to the Commission”. But why would Mehlis say that in this report when he had said in the preliminary report that ISRAEL and Jordan gave help to his investigation, and when he had told Le Figaro that Israel provided help, and when the Israeli press reported that Israeli intelligence agents had met with his team in Europe? That will only raise doubts about the alleged “objectivity”–they lie to you when they use that word, always–and non-political nature of the report. The account by Rustum Ghazalah in paragraph 27 is so clearly untrue, for anybody who knows anything about the nature of the relationship between Ghazalah and Hariri. Equally lying, is the account of Jubran Tuwayni, and I don’t understand why he got into the report except due to his love of the cameras, and to seeing his name in print, just like Sen. Schumer of New York. And the account of Tuwayni, who never was a confidante of Hariri, was not corroborated by anybody else. Nobody except Tuwayni claims that Hariri was threatened with bombings to his face by Bashshar Al-Asad. From his hotel in Paris, Jubran Tuwayni wanted to get into the story, this right-wing untalented writer who is discredited among Muslims and who was told by Christian voters in East Beirut to go to “Hariri’s house” when he showed his face after the assassination of Samir Qasir. I talked to a Hariri confidante who saw Hariri just after returning from the meeting with Bashshar on 26th of August. According to that person, Hariri said that the meeting was “not good” but did not report threats. I heard about the comment about “bring down Lebanon over their heads” but that was not said by Bashshar, but was said to Hariri in another setting according to my information. And the tapes conversation between Hariri and Walid Mu`allim does not refer to the threat either, and I am not saying whether it was said or not, but have to dissect the text before me. And Mehlis needed, no needs as he will be with us for years I predict, somebody to help with transliteration of Arabic. In paragraph 28, you see that Hariri’s main beef was not principles or the lofty ideals by the professionally hired chanters of the Hummus Revolution. It was about the petty feud between Hariri and Lahhud. MORE
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
Hal C.
Apart from the issue of the press headlines, for those interested in reading more about the UN report, From Beirut to the Beltway presents a summary.
This is interesting: