Los Angeles Times Corrects False Statement Regarding Bremer Farewell Speech
As regular readers know, I have been flogging the Los Angeles Times for falsely reporting on the front page of its Sunday edition that L. Paul Bremer III had left Iraq “without even giving a final speech to the country.” (For previous posts, see here, here, and here.)
The Times today issues the following correction:
Iraqi handover — A news analysis about the new Iraqi government in Sunday’s Section A stated that outgoing administrator L. Paul Bremer III did not give a farewell speech to the country. His spokesman has since said that Bremer taped an address that was given to Iraqi broadcast media. The spokesman said the address was not publicized to the Western news media.
I’m pleased that the paper has acknowledged its error. However, it is not an excuse that the speech was “not publicized to the Western news media.” Bremer’s farewell address had been common knowledge among readers of internet blogs since at least June 30, when I wrote about Tim Blair’s criticism of the Washington Post for making the same exact error. Yet the front-page L.A. Times news analysis appeared on July 4 — 4 days later.
Moral: someone at every major paper should be reading blogs. If they did, the papers might learn different points of view. They might pick up stories that are “not publicized to the Western news media.”
And they might make fewer errors on their front pages.
(Cross-posted at “Oh, That Liberal Media.”)
UPDATE: Thanks to Powerline, Instapundit, Dean Esmay, and Tim Blair for the links. I hope new readers will bookmark and/or blogroll the site, and keep reading.
UPDATE x2: Thanks also to Hugh Hewitt and Mickey Kaus for the links. And I am especially flattered to have been mentioned by Omar at Iraq the Model.
The Dead Parrot Society does a good job of trying to get to the bottom of what speech(es) Bremer actually did give. It appears there may have been two: one taped beforehand, and another at the handover ceremony.
The blogosphere continually amazes me with its ability to function as a collective entity for the distribution of information. Newspapers and other media organizations ignore it at their peril.
UPDATE x3: Here is a CNN transcript of one of Bremer’s farewell speeches.
L.A. Times vs. New York Times
So the New York Times has gained a well-earned reputation for slipshot, dishonest, absurdly partisan reporting when it comes to any issue that remotely touches on American politics. But the real question is, which is worse? The N…
Trackback by Dean's World — 7/8/2004 @ 6:44 am
And why aren’t they reading the Iraqi news media? Isn’t what Iraqis write about their own country newsworthy?
Comment by Kevin P. — 7/8/2004 @ 7:30 am
Kevin-
Silly! Don’t you know that no Iraqi journalist has a master’s from Columbia J-school, which logically leads to the conclusion that the only people over there with any credibility are the representatives of US Big Media?
Comment by flyerguy — 7/8/2004 @ 7:44 am
Congrats, Patterico. You’ve done a good job on the publicity on this one. I’d say it’s about as big as the Ginsburg story.
Comment by Chadster — 7/8/2004 @ 7:54 am
THE BREMER SPEECH
The dogged Patterico has been hounding the LA Times due to reports that Bremer left Iraq without giving a speech. It turns out Bremer did give a speech but it was pre-taped. LA Times got the part about the speech…
Trackback by Begging To Differ — 7/8/2004 @ 8:22 am
Not In the Job Description
They just report news…now you want them to find it too? LA Times Link via Patterico’s Pontifications: A news analysis about the new Iraqi government in Sunday’s Section A stated that outgoing administrator L. Paul Bremer III did not give…
Trackback by Random Thoughts — 7/8/2004 @ 9:25 am
Not In the Job Description
They just report news…now you want them to find it too? LA Times Link via Patterico’s Pontifications: A news analysis about the new Iraqi government in Sunday’s Section A stated that outgoing administrator L. Paul Bremer III did not give…
Trackback by Random Thoughts — 7/8/2004 @ 9:38 am
Plus, the only Iraqi media we have is Iraq the Model. And we all know they’re just CIA plants.
Comment by Xrlq — 7/8/2004 @ 10:14 am
Case closed on Bremer speech
The case of the mysterious Bremer farewell speech is closed, at least as far as I’m concerned. Shortened version: Bremer did not deliver a live speech between the time of the handover ceremony and the time he left Iraq; instead he pre-taped a speech an…
Trackback by The Dead Parrot Society — 7/8/2004 @ 10:36 am
It amazes me how the major print media carry on as if journalism were not changing fundamentally. The mantra that only hard copy matters will be the epitaph of more than one newspaper, if the owners and editors don’t reconnect to reality. It’s a fact of Nature: those who view their genuinely novel competitors with contempt will be rendered extinct by the next stage of evolution. “Adapt or die” is the rule, and the newspapers have not even admitted they are in trouble. Amazing.
Comment by L. Barnes — 7/8/2004 @ 10:45 am
This is a “correction”? Bremer’s “spokesman has since said that Bremer taped an address.” As if there was still some question. It’s only Bremer’s “spokesman” after all, it’s not as if the LAT could find out on its own by, say, listening to the speech, which was broadcast throughout Iraq.
Comment by jimhanavan — 7/8/2004 @ 11:34 am
I still think Alissa J. Rubin, the reporter, and James Carroll, LA Times editor, owe Amb. Bremer a personal apology for the “afraid to look the Iraqis in the eye” crack.
Comment by Tom B — 7/8/2004 @ 11:57 am
“And they might make fewer errors on their front pages.”
Now why on earth would they want to do that? It’s not like they’ve ever tried before…and if shoddy journalism rakes in the Pulitzers, why start now?
Comment by Michael/Los Angeles — 7/8/2004 @ 12:30 pm
Another well deserved media scalp for Patterico! Greta job!
Comment by Justin Levine — 7/8/2004 @ 12:38 pm
Here is irrefutable evidence that indeed Mr. Bermer gave a farewell speech
Bremer then left the country. But before he did, he had a farewell message for the people of Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
L. PAUL BREMER, FRM. IRAQI CIVIL ADMINISTRATOR: The future of Iraq belongs to you, the Iraqi people. We and your other friends will help, but we can only help. You must do the real work.
The Iraq your children and their children inherit will depend on your actions in the months and years ahead. You Iraqis must now take responsibility for your future of hope. You can create that future of hope by standing fast against those who kill your police and soldiers, who kill your women and children, who wreck Iraq’s pipelines and power lines, and then claim to be your champions.
You can create that future of hope by supporting your government and the elections they are pledged to bring you. You can create that future of hope in a thousand different ways by sharing through your words and deeds a personal commitment to a stable and peaceful Iraq.
You, Iraq’s Kurds and Arabs, Shi’a and Sunni, Turkomen and Christian, you are more like each other than you are different from one another. You have a shared vision of how a united Iraq can, again, be a beacon of hope to the region. You have a shared hatred of the violence inflicted on you by those who abhor your vision. And you have a shared love of this wonderful, rich land.
Let no one pit you against each other. For when Iraqis fight Iraqis, only Iraqis suffer.
I leave Iraq gladdened by what has been accomplished and confident that your future is full of hope. A piece of my heart will always remain here in the beautiful land between the two rivers with its fertile valleys, it’s majestic mountains and its wonderful people. ‘ (END VIDEO CLIP)
Comment by Michael in SC — 7/8/2004 @ 1:38 pm
Everybody knows he gave a speech.
The question is, a) why didn’t someone at the LAT know it, b) why didn’t the reporter CALL THE SPOKESPERSON and ask “so, did the guy give a speech?” before turning in that copy, and c) why didn’t the editors at the LAT ask the guy “so, did you check whether he gave a speech or not?”
I don’t understand why things I learned on my high-school paper seem so difficult.
Comment by jaed — 7/8/2004 @ 2:34 pm
Patterico, did you see that Iraq the Model mentioned you today? What do you think of that? I think it’s way cool!!!
Why don’t you write more for local newspapers? Does the Times hate you or something?
Comment by sapphire tini — 7/8/2004 @ 3:12 pm
Media Ethics
The NYT has changed its tune on Welfare Reform. In 1996, WR was the first horseman of the apocalypse, destined to throw millions of poor mothers into the gutter for those evil Republicans. Now, it’s a no-brainer. Will they admit…
Trackback by The Conjecturer — 7/8/2004 @ 4:26 pm
Notice the stingy nature of the LA Times response. For one thing, it was not, in their words, a “correction”. It was coyly marked “For the record” as if nothing needed correction. And it still doesn’t say that Bremer gave a speech; it says that Bremer’s spokesman said he gave a speech. (I’m sure it was an exercise in restraint not to say “claimed.”) LA Times parts with corrections as if they were teeth.
Comment by Tim — 7/8/2004 @ 4:57 pm
Well done for helping to expose yet another instance of bad journalism. Where would we be without blogs like yours, Tim Blair and Iraq the Model? (I’m from Australia and came to your blog via Tim Blair.)
I first became aware of that rag, the L.A. Times, when I lived in L.A. for a short time some years ago. What a waste of trees!
Talking about errors, you may recall that back in 2002 (I think), the L.A. Times ran an editorial in which it pontificated ignorantly on Australia’s treatment of “refugees” (mainly illegal immigrants). Among its many factual howlers, if my memory serves me correctly, it referred to our Prime Minister as “John Major” rather than “John Howard”. I can’t find it on the Internet, but you may have it somewhere in your files. I have located a response dated January 9, 2002 by our then Immigration Minister, Philip Ruddock, to some errors in two articles in that paper.
Comment by Antony — 7/8/2004 @ 6:48 pm
This is not poor journalism, it is moral absence. I believe the LA Times knew full well there was a speech. They have feet on the ground, and if they have feet on the ground, the feet on the ground watch the local TV I’m sure.
This represents a much more base issue with big media, and its mistaken belief they can rewrite history…the fact that I can post this message, in a topic on this very subject, which will probably be read by tens? Hundreds? Thousands should be clue enough for them. But more importantly, the singular fact that this thread is but one of a multitude of threads involving millions of readers and posters on the planet…that singular fact will cause the demise of big media as it stands. We are not sheep anymore!
Cheers,
Braun
Comment by Braun — 7/8/2004 @ 7:14 pm
ASA HUTCHINSON MEETS HOT TALK
And gets burned big time. Dale Franks at QandO has a great summary and analysis of the Homeland Security Undersecretary’s appearance yesterday on KFI-AM’s John and Ken show in Los Angeles. These guys are doing what the Los Angeles Times…
Trackback by Michelle Malkin — 7/8/2004 @ 9:23 pm
And where is the blogosphere on Cheney stepping down? Boifromtroy and I cannot do this alone.
Comment by Justene — 7/8/2004 @ 9:46 pm
Enemablog
Checking the links for another week: Blogs The Showcase continues to gather great entries. To help expand readership (especially repeat readers) I am thinking of changing it into a weekly contest based on links. Let me know what you think. There’s plen…
Trackback by Simon World — 7/9/2004 @ 12:23 am
times runs correction
an update to my bias or mistakes post. after some more communication with the los angeles times, a correction was issued today. but was it really a correction? actually its more like a ‘how dare you attempt to tell the…
Trackback by [ me and my monkey ] — 7/9/2004 @ 1:43 am
Still At War
The Bush Admninistration warned yesterday that intelligence services have received a stream of non-specific data indicating that al-Qaeda intends on disrupting the upcoming election with a “catastrophic” attack — perhaps more than one: Osama bin Laden…
Trackback by Captain's Quarters — 7/9/2004 @ 6:37 am
ASA HUTCHINSON MEETS HOT TALK
And gets burned big time. Dale Franks at QandO has a great summary and analysis of the Homeland Security Undersecretary’s appearance yesterday on KFI-AM’s John and Ken show in Los Angeles. These guys are doing what the Los Angeles Times…
Trackback by Michelle Malkin — 7/10/2004 @ 2:46 am
Submitted for Your Approval
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council links:Los …
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 7/13/2004 @ 8:57 pm
Are all of your “pontifications” similar to this rant? A friend sent me your complaint about the Times’ “error,” and noted that they “corrected” it (as if this were some kind of indictment). In fact, all they did was clarify what happened for people who aren’t terribly sophisticated readers.
Did Bremer get on the plane without giving a “final” speech? Yes.
Did Bremer give a “farewell” speech at a private, secretive ceremony? Yes (as Ruben reported on the 28th).
Sounds pretty cowardly to me.
At any rate, at least the Times is somewhat responsive to the whacked-out fringe right. But do you think that the American Spectator has ever “corrected” any of their outright fabrications? Or, for that matter, FOX?
Didn’t think so.
Comment by Francis — 7/14/2004 @ 12:56 pm
1) Yes, most of my pontifications are (I hope) as insightful as this particular rant.
2) I don’t know what feats of courage you have performed in your life. But I think it’s a remarkable statement to call Paul Bremer, a man who ruled for a year in the heart of terroristic activity in the world, a “coward.”
3) Sorry certain readers lacked the “sophistication” necessary to read the phrase “without even giving a final speech to the country” as meaning “he gave two final speeches to the country.”
4) If other media outlets make specific errors, you call them on it. If they refuse to correct them, let them have it. If you are correct, I’ll agree with you. And I won’t play the “you, too” game.
Comment by Patterico — 7/14/2004 @ 2:35 pm
“1) Yes, most of my pontifications are (I hope) as insightful as this particular rant.”
By “insight” do you mean a gift for taking innocuous language and turning it into something sinister and conspiratorial?
Why, in your critique of the Times, did you repeatedly use the word “farewell” in reference to the speech, when the Times only ever used the term “final”?
Did he give a “farewell” speech? Yes (briefly), to a secret, private group.
Did he then give a final speech to the throng of Iraqis waiting for him outside? No, he did not. Strangely, however, the new Iraqi leader did. Could this be what the Times was referring to?
Did Bremer III, missing this opportunity, give a final speech to the throng of Iraqis through which he was escorted at the airport. Again, he did not.
Where’s the problem?
“2) I don’t know what feats of courage you have performed in your life. But I think it’s a remarkable statement to call Paul Bremer, a man who ruled for a year in the heart of terroristic activity in the world, a ‘coward’.”
By “heart of terroristic activity in the world,” I hope you are referring in large part to the terror that we’ve wrought with our illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.
There is *no* evidence of Iraqi affiliation with terrorism before the invasion (not so with Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia). Now, however, there’s plenty of it on both sides, from our hundreds of daily midnight raids on civilian homes to the various freelance terrorists who’ve come into Iraq and set up shop amid the chaos, plundering weapons caches and wreaking havoc.
“3) Sorry certain readers lacked the ’sophistication’ necessary to read the phrase ‘without even giving a final speech to the country’ as meaning ‘he gave two final speeches to the country’.”
???
The only sophistication required would be an ability to differentiate the words “final” and “farewell,” and to put them in context.
Your statement above doesn’t make a lick of sense, anyway.
“4) If other media outlets make specific errors, you call them on it. If they refuse to correct them, let them have it. If you are correct, I’ll agree with you. And I won’t play the ‘you, too’ game.”
Way to stay above the fray.
Just try to maintain your objectivity. There’s a difference between critical thinking and criticism.
Comment by Francis — 7/15/2004 @ 12:45 pm
Why, in your critique of the Times, did you repeatedly use the word “farewell” in reference to the speech, when the Times only ever used the term “final”?
Did you read the Times’s correction??? It’s right there above your comment. Go ahead, take a look. I’ll wait.
Yup — the correction says:
And this is your first and most important point — one repeated throughout your comment.
But thanks for the lesson on objectivity.
Comment by Patterico — 7/15/2004 @ 1:43 pm
You’re welcome.
More evidence that you’re not much for details, context, or reading (generally speaking): I referenced the “correction” in my first posting, when I gave the Times kudos for being responsive to the whacked-out right.
But, pray tell, what were they correcting?
The *fact* is that they said nothing that wasn’t correct; they simply clarified some things for you and your chums.
Any interest in addressing my points? I’ve addressed each of yours.
Comment by Francis — 7/15/2004 @ 2:49 pm
You do a good job pretending that you didn’t just get whacked upside the head, but that doesn’t mean we didn’t see it happen.
To be clear: you just predicated an entire argument on the all-important distinction between “farewell” and “final” — but the paper itself doesn’t make that distinction.
By the way, the paper’s e-mail to me (from the assistant Reader’s Rep) designates what you call a “clarification” as a “correction.” So I guess that distinction eluded the paper as well.
The word that comes to mind is “denial.”
Comment by Patterico — 7/15/2004 @ 4:02 pm
The Council Has Spoken!
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are UN Admits Saddam Had WMD by Alpha Patriot…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 7/15/2004 @ 9:25 pm
To be fully accurate, the assistant Reader’s Rep characterized it as a “clarification” in the e-mail — but institutionally, the paper designated it a “correction,” as this quotation from the e-mail shows:
Thought that’s worth noting, since more than one person has said it was just a “For the Record” item and not a correction. The paper says it was a correction.
Comment by Patterico — 7/16/2004 @ 7:03 am
I’m not pretending that the original article, the one to which you originally referred and made the claim about, nowhere contained the word “farewell.” Nowhere. Only in the “correction” did the Times use the word farewell.
Not anywhere in the article you were referring to. Nowhere. So, before you whined to the Times and got your response, to what were *you* referring?
Tell us. I’m begging you. Where did *you* come up with the term, “farewell speech”?
You imagineered it. Nice, objective criticism.
Comment by Francis — 7/16/2004 @ 11:02 am
I’m resisting the temptation to use one of my favorite movie quotes: “Lighten up, Francis.”
I am also having a heck of a time understanding why you find such a significant distinction between two terms that, especially when read in context, the paper itself apparently found interchangeable.
This exchange may not be getting tiresome, but it sure is getting boring.
Comment by Patterico — 7/16/2004 @ 6:12 pm
Los Angelenos: Cancel your LA Times subscription! Let them know it is because of their (admitted) liberal bias. Try the Daily News or Wall Street Journal instead.
PS: As an added bonus, they might, * might * stop the telemarketing calls to you.
Comment by Buy Republican — 8/24/2004 @ 1:48 pm