« Thought of the Day: Avoiding the Kissinger of Death | Main | Headline of the Day: McCain One of Us? »

November 15, 2006

Iran, Somalia, Uranium… and The New York Times

Still ethically-challenged, lazy or both?

 

 

It seems the blogosphere has beaten mainstream media yet again at highlighting a major story; and again, no credit forthcoming from the mainstream media. But even more interesting is whether the New York Times plagiarized Reuters in the two articles in which both downplayed the story.

 

While reading one of the excellent posts over at Right Truth today, I found a link pertaining to the prospect of Iran securing uranium from Somalia as part of a quid-pro-quo military arrangement (involving the usual trading of arms and training of terrorist proxies). Given the nature of the news story, I did a quick LexisNexis search (using the search terms: iran uranium somalia) to see if I could find anything else on the topic and found only one: posted at the Jawa Report November 13, which cites and links to a Reuters report from the same date. The New York Times also alludes to the earlier Reuters report, which cites an advanced copy of a UN report it received prior to the UN report’s general publication, but does not cite individual sections apparently taken directly from the Reuters report by the New York Times.

 

In fact, NYT writer Robert F. Worth only mentions Reuters once in passing at the beginning of his article:

 

The report, which was disclosed by Reuters on Monday, appears to be the first indication that foreign fighters assisted Hezbollah during the 34-day conflict, when Israel maintained a tight blockade on Lebanon.

 

Both the New York Times and Reuters however buried the possible uranium deal deep and toward the end of their articles and it was only the Jawa Report that picked up on its significance and gave it the attention it should have received from the mainstream press.

 

More slothful research on the part of the New York Times perhaps, and that mediocrity may explain some of what troubles such dinosaur outlets, along with their noted spin and past ethical lapses including plagairism. And perhaps the similarities of the two articles is considered perfectly normal treatment of a newswire article for which Reuters has no trouble, but at best it seems to suggest a bit of laziness at the Times. It is also unhelpful to the reader. Indeed, one should think it would serve the reader to know whether others have directly contributed to the content of a report or not.

 

Compare snippets from the two articles below and remember that the New York Times gives only brief and insignificant mention to the Reuters article and not in any way as the author of the almost identical verbiage below; miraculously pulling the same quote from the below-mentioned UN report and preceding it with almost a carbon-copy paragraph, which is implicitly presented as original, only moving a couple deck chairs around in the process.

 

 

This is the Reuters report from November 13 (beginning paragraph 16 of 24):

 

The report also gives a hint that Iran, locked in a battle with the West over its nuclear ambitions, may have sought help in finding uranium in the hometown of Somali Islamist leader Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys.

 

"At the time of the writing of the present report, there were two Iranians in Dusa Mareb engaged in matters linked to uranium in exchange for arms," it says, but gives no more information.

 

 

The New York Times article published on November 15 (today) reads in part (beginning paragraph 14 of 21):

 

It also indicates that Iran appears to have sought help in its quest for uranium in Dusa Mareb, the hometown of Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys, the leader of the Islamist alliance in Somalia, which is known as the Council of Islamic Courts.

 

“At the time of the writing of this report, there were two Iranians in Dusa Mareb engaged on matters linked to the exploration of uranium in exchange for arms” for the Council of Islamic Courts, says the report, which is dated Oct. 16.

 

 

The New York Times seems content to act as if its readers live in a vacuum, which is clearly not the case since readership is continuing to trend downward significantly for the paper.

 

As far as The Gray Lady and Reuters go, this shows again why there yet appears to be no honor among thieves or spinsters.

 

 

Posted by Martin at November 15, 2006 05:29 PM

Comments