Reuters still covering for Iran's nukes program

In story after story about Iran and its nuclear weapons medical isotopes program, Reuters correspondents continue to sanitize, downplay, or simply conceal evidentiary assessments by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran is illegally engaged in all of the necessary R & D activities associated with building and delivering a nuclear warhead.

Here's Dan Williams trying to shift attention to Israel while framing the crisis with Iran as merely an unsupported claim by "western officials" and commensurate rebuttal from Iran:

But it [Israel] is keen to cast itself as a responsible nuclear player while world powers step up scrutiny of Iran's disputed nuclear energy programme, which Western officials suspect is covertly designed to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies this.

And Reuters Istanbul correspondent, Alexandra Hudson, portraying Israel as a belligerent loose cannon while characterizing Iran's weaponization efforts as a "nuclear energy programme":

Israel is threatening to take military action, with or without U.S. support, if Iran is deemed to be continuing to defy pressure to curb its nuclear projects. Iran insists its nuclear energy programme is purely non-military.

And Arshad Mohammed and Andrew Quinn suggesting that international sanctions against Iran are actuated by the Iranian regime's "failure to answer questions" directed by "Washington and its allies":  

The United States has tightened sanctions due to Iran's failure to answer questions about its nuclear program, which Washington and its allies suspect is a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says it is solely to generate power supply.

No mention in any of these stories of the United Nations IAEA, the mountain of independent and scientific analysis adjudging Iran, or the regime's many explicit threats to destroy another nation-state and exterminate its people.

Nothing to see here; move along.

Framing

Framing is the process by which the factual record is packaged and presented in such a way so as to emphasize and focus audience attention on certain information while filtering and de-emphasizing or concealing other information.  An audience subjected to framing is compelled to come away with an interpretation of events the framer wishes to see adopted.

When applied systematically, framing is a form of propaganda.

In this Reuters story, written by Arshad Mohammed, Ramin Mostafavi, and Alastair Macdonald, note how framing is used to direct and manipulate audience perception:

(Reuters) - Major powers signaled on Friday their willingness to reopen talks about curbing Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons but said Tehran must show it is serious about any negotiations.
The focus on diplomacy follows weeks of rising tensions between the West, which is seeking to cut Iran's oil sales, and Tehran, which has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz through which almost one-fifth of oil traded worldwide flows.
Alarmed Arab neighbors made a plea to avoid escalating the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, while an ally of Iran's supreme leader called for Israel to be "punished" for allegedly killing an Iranian nuclear scientist.
The West suspects Iran is using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop atomic weapons and has pursued a two-track approach of sanctions and diplomacy to try to rein it in. Iran says its nuclear program is solely to produce electricity.

Reuters asserts that "alarmed Arab neighbors" have "made a plea to avoid escalating the dispute over Iran's nuclear program", so as to suggest the Arab states are opposed to additional sanctions or military action intended to prevent Iran from consummating its nuclear weapons program.

With no relevant quotations within the story to support Reuters' assertion, it's impossible to know from where the agency is obtaining this hearsay.  Perhaps Reuters is referring to a strikingly similar statement by Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal who, in response to Iranian threats to target the Gulf Arab states and close the Strait of Hormuz, said that "the increasing escalation and tension may lead to a misadventure or a military confrontation."

If this is the comment to which Reuters is referring, note how the agency takes a cold statement of fact directed primarily at Iran and distorts it into a "plea" not to escalate tensions, presumably directed to western powers.  Further, Reuters fails to mention that al-Faisal also stated that to defend its interests, Saudi Arabia "will use all options against Iran".  A very different message than that framed and suggested by Reuters.

Next, Reuters cites "an ally of Iran's supreme leader" who reportedly called for Israel to be punished for allegedly killing an Iranian scientist (note also the story photo of an Iranian stepping on an Israeli flag).  Yet, there is no mention that the Iranian government has blamed primarily the United States and Britain for the killing, even going so far as to present alleged evidence supporting the claim.

Finally, there is use of the ubiquitous "the West suspects Iran" (of developing nuclear weapons) to frame the conflict as merely a contention between Iran and the amorphous "West", with presumably no evidence, no scientific analysis, and no one other than western nations holding the same view.

What a narrow, distorted, and short-sighted frame is that provided to its audience by Reuters.

Reuters still lying about Gaza flotilla

Nearly 16 months on, Reuters correspondents are still lying, still misleading readers about the 2010 Gaza flotilla incident.  In a story about the deteriorating relationship between Turkey and Israel and efforts by the U.S. to heal this rift, Arshad Mohammed writes:

Israel's May 2010 raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla killed nine Turkish citizens and the idea of future Turkish naval escorts raise the possibility of a military confrontation between two major U.S. allies in the Middle East.

For the umpteenth time, there was no aid on board the Turkish ship where passengers representing the Islamist İnsani Yardım Vakfı (IHH) attempted to lynch the Israeli boarding party with knives, iron rods, and chains.  Which may explain why:

Israel's refusal to apologize for the flotilla incident has angered Turkey, an ally of the United States through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and a growing economic power.

Mohammed willfully omits every historical detail exonerating Israel from wrongdoing in the incident including the findings of the United Nations Palmer report which concluded that the Israeli maritime embargo of the Gaza Strip was fully legal and that passengers were seeking a violent confrontation.

Mohammed also understates nearly universal recognition of Hamas as a terrorist group by citing only Israel and the U.S. as those countries which identify the regime as such.  In fact, dozens of other countries, including the entire European Union, officially classify Hamas as a terrorist group.

Mohammed refers to Israeli military action in Gaza in 2008, which sought to stop thousands of rockets fired by Hamas into civilian communities, as an "offensive" and the Reuters correspondent parrots (sans quotation marks) Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan calling Israel "a spoiled client of the West".

In other words, a typical day at the keyboard for a Reuters "journalist". 

Reuters again whitewashes Muslim Brotherhood

Since the downfall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in February, Reuters has been systematically whitewashing the doctrine and history of the Muslim Brotherhood so as to make the group more palatable to naive Western audiences.  In a Reuters story published today in the The Jerusalem Post, that pattern continues:

WASHINGTON - The United States has decided to resume formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, a senior US official said on Wednesday, in a step that reflects the Islamist group's growing political weight but that is almost certain to upset Israel and its US backers.

"The political landscape in Egypt has changed, and is changing," said the senior official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It is in our interests to engage with all of the parties that are competing for parliament or the presidency."

The official sought to portray the shift as a subtle evolution rather than a dramatic change in Washington's stance toward the Brotherhood, a group founded in 1928 that seeks to promote its conservative vision of Islam in society [...]

There is no US legal prohibition against dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood itself, which long ago renounced violence as a means to achieve political change in Egypt and which is not regarded by Washington as a foreign terrorist organization.

But other sympathetic groups, such as Hamas, which identifies the Brotherhood as its spiritual guide, have not disavowed violence against the state of Israel

That "conservative" vision is driven by the Brotherhood's motto:

Allah is our objective.  The Prophet is our leader.  The Qur'an is our law.  Jihad is our way.  Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. 

And although the Brotherhood pays lip service to non-violence when hobnobbing with Western officials and the media, its leaders continue to preach exterminatory hatred for Jews and homosexuals and fund Islamic terror groups dedicated to that mission.

Moreover, Hamas is not simply a "spiritual" protege of the Muslim Brotherhood, it is the Muslim Brotherhood. 

UPDATE 9:05 AM: The native version of this story has now appeared on the Reuters website, authored by Arshad Mohammed and edited by disgraced former Jerusalem Bureau Chief, Alastair Macdonald.

Reuters pathologically unwilling to hold Palestinians accountable for their behavior

Read through hundreds of Reuters stories on the Middle East conflict and of the many constitutional biases demonstrated by its Bureau staff, one that features perhaps most prominently is the utter refusal to accord any responsibility to the Palestinians for their own decisions and actions.  As noted by Charles Krauthammer and Elliott Abrams, this infantilizing of the Palestinian Arabs by Western apologists in media and the government serves to reward Palestinian intransigence and perpetuate the conflict.

In a story about a speech by Secretary of State Clinton before the American Jewish Committee, Reuters correspondent Arshad Mohammed once again nursemaids the Palestinians:

President Barack Obama's efforts to revive peace talks have been stymied by a disagreement over Jewish settlement construction that has strained ties between Washington and its close ally Israel and by divisions among the Palestinians.

With his nebulous reference to "divisions among the Palestinians", Mohammed is presumably referring to the split between the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas in Gaza.  Yet, this split is completely irrelevant to Abbas' continuing rejection of negotiations with Israel.  Proof of this can be seen in Abbas' participation in the Annapolis conference in November of 2007 which led to nearly a year of peace talks with Israel under former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and resulted in an extraordinary -- but unrequited -- settlement offer from Olmert.  In the meantime, Hamas continued to howl and Israel continued to build in Jerusalem as well as in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") and there was nary a peep of protest by the Palestinians under Abbas' authority.

Thus, it's quite clear that the current effort to bring the Palestinians back to the table has been "stymied" not by Jewish settlements nor Palestinian "divisions" but rather by Palestinian obduracy in the face of what they perceive as an opportunity to gain further concessions from the Israelis before the talks begin.

More like the cunning of an old fox than the naivete of a newborn.

Does Hezbollah have Scuds? Reuters asks Syria, not Hezbollah

In the continuing intrigue related to the question of whether Hezbollah has obtained Scud missiles, Reuters fastidiously parrots Syria's denials:

Israeli President Shimon Peres has accused Syria of sending Scuds to Hezbollah. Syria denies the charge and says Israel may be using the accusation as a pretext for a military strike.

But nowhere in Arshad Mohammed's story is the query put to Hezbollah which, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai (cited by the Jerusalem Post), has confirmed receiving the missiles -- with the qualification that they were "old and unusable".

Yes, we're sure Hezbollah is planning on using them as paperweights.

An unsupported assertion that belies the facts

In a story on US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's Q and A session in Qatar, where Iran was apparently a hot topic, Reuters correspondent Arshad Mohammed asserts:

While Arab states fear the possibility of Iran getting the bomb, and warn that it could spark a regional arms race, they are also uneasy about the possibility that military action by Israel against Iran could profoundly destabilize the region.

Mohammed offers no evidence to support the latter notion and we wonder why, if Arab states like Egypt are so "uneasy" about Israeli military action, they are providing highly visible free passage to Israeli war ships