Fearing the truth will out

Reuters correspondents have a long history of censoring, obfuscating, or simply lying in their reporting so as to advance their personal advocacy agendas, or those of their employer.  Denying, downplaying, distorting, or omitting factual content in their stories is de rigueur.

This can be seen clearly in the agency's coverage of the Iranian nuclear program.

In a Reuters story published yesterday, following US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's dire warning in an interview with CBS that Iran can likely produce a nuclear weapon in about a year, perhaps much less if the country has a hidden facility enriching nuclear fuel, Reuters correspondent Phil Stewart does his level best to undermine Panetta's informed advice:

(Reuters) - How long would Iran need to develop a nuclear weapon if its leaders decided to build one?
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta thinks it could take just under a year, an ever so slightly more narrow timeline than the one-year minimum his predecessor, Robert Gates, put forward.
But nuclear experts are skeptical Tehran could move that quickly and a Pentagon spokesman acknowledged on Tuesday he was not aware of any new intelligence driving Panetta's latest remarks, which aired on U.S. television on Monday evening.

Note how, following a cursory reporting of Panetta's statement, Stewart seeks to immediately discredit it.  "Nuclear experts are skeptical", the agency reporter trumpets as he proceeds to cherry-pick an opinion from the director of a single NGO who characterizes Panetta's forecast as "unlikely".  In a subsequent paragraph, Stewart acknowledges that, unlike the Secretary of Defense, this director has no access to any classified intelligence; yet his uninformed opinion is offered as countervailing evidence that Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon within a year.

Stewart not only fails to come up with a second "nuclear expert" taking the same line, he neglects to cite the views of many other scientists and military analysts who have corroborated the Defense Secretary's position.  Nor does Stewart mention the recent findings of scientists at the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency, concluding that Iran has:

... carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:
• Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
• Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex, Section C.3);
• The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
• Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).

(Note particularly, the finding that Iran has engaged in clandestine efforts to produce nuclear fuel, precisely the caveat issued by Panetta in his explanation of why Iran may be even less than a year away from producing nuclear weapons).

Rather, Stewart seeks to incriminate another party for all the fuss:

Panetta's remarks come at a moment of intense speculation about whether Israel, which sees a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, may be moving closer to military action to halt a program it says is aimed at building an atomic bomb.

Because according to Reuters, there is no independent evidence that Iran is on the cusp of producing the bomb; this is merely a he said/she said "dispute" between equally credible parties.

Reuters: Israel unpredictable belligerent

In yet another in its epic series of anti-Israel polemics, Reuters correspondents Mark Hosenball and Phil Stewart work the ropes in an attempt to portray Israel as an unpredictable belligerent, poised to stir up trouble for the United States, the region, and world economies by unilaterally attacking Iran without seeking permission from the Obama administration:

Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA expert on the Middle East who has advised Obama, said, "Israel has a long history of conducting military operations from Baghdad to Tunis without giving Washington advance notice."
Riedel said the White House wants to send Israel a strong message that the United States does not expect to be blindsided by its ally. "Obama wants Bibi to understand unequivocally he does not want a repeat performance in Iran," he said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by his nickname.
The Obama administration suspects that Israeli leaders have marked out for themselves certain "red lines" related to Iranian nuclear progress which could trigger Israeli military action if they are crossed, one U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
But Obama administration policymakers are plagued by a "sense of opacity" in their understanding of where the Israeli red lines are drawn, the official added.
Two other U.S. officials, also speaking on condition they not be named, said Washington is deeply concerned Israel, unconvinced sanctions and diplomatic pressure will halt Iran's nuclear program, could eventually decide to take action on its own.

While painting Israel as a kind of loose cannon, Hosenball and Stewart manage to evade mentioning even once, across almost 900 words of blather, Iran's many threats to see Israel annihilated or the United Nations IAEA report which has concluded that Iran is on the threshold of obtaining the means to deliver on those threats.

It's as if the two Reuters correspondents had just woken up one morning to find a furtive and petulant Israel capriciously contemplating war.

To gather a sense of the debilitating effects of this type of propaganda campaign orchestrated by the world's largest news agency, have a look at the reader comments below the story.

Reuters, systematically dumbing down the planet.

Reuters channels George Carlin

The sun will rise tomorrow.  Winter leads to spring.  And Reuters will continue to peddle deceitful propaganda in an effort to manipulate its audience to buy into the agency's world view.

Following the departure of Hosni Mubarak last Friday, government leaders in the US and elsewhere have expressed concern that the Muslim Brotherhood may ascend to power in Egypt.  As a media organization that has consistently embraced all things hostile to Jewish nationalism, Reuters has been busy over the last couple of weeks cleaning up the image, history, membership, and doctrine of the Brotherhood so as to make the group more palatable to Western audiences.

Reuters correspondent Phil Stewart continues in that vein by offering us a risible oxymoron; selectively quoting the Obama administration's dubious director of national intelligence; and repeating a propaganda mantra which has become ubiquitous of late in Reuters stories on the Brotherhood:

Al Qaeda is widely seen as weak in Egypt thanks partly to Mubarak, and his departure is raising fears in the U.S. Congress that the rise of even moderate Islamists may give radical elements more room to operate.

Recalling comedian George Carlin, the phrase "moderate Islamist" evokes other classic oxymorons like holy war, mercy killing, and death benefit.  Only Reuters could suggest that those zealously committed to the universal adoption of medieval and misogynistic Sharia law could be considered "moderate".

In an effort to suggest that Western concerns over the Muslim Brotherhood are overblown, Stewart cites the Obama administration's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, in testimony before Congress:

James Clapper, the U.S. director of national intelligence, sought to play down fears about the Muslim Brotherhood this week, saying it "has eschewed violence and has decried al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam."
"They have pursued social ends, betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera," he told lawmakers on Thursday.
Clapper acknowledged that the Muslim Brotherhood was only an umbrella group, and FBI Director Robert Mueller noted that some elements have supported terrorism in the past.

Carefully edited out from this direct quote however, is Clapper's embarrassing assertion that the Brotherhood is largely secular.  Here is a more complete citation:

"The term 'Muslim Brotherhood'...is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam," Clapper said. "They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera.....In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally."

Nor does Stewart mention that Clapper may not be the most reliable source for an accurate assessment of the Islamist threat to peace and security.

Then comes the propaganda mantra:

The movement [Muslim Brotherhood], which Mubarak's government banned and sought to demonize, is certainly hostile to Israel and the U.S. policy in the region.
It has historic links with the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, which Washington considers to be a terrorist organization, and shares its belief in armed struggle against Israel.
But unlike the militant groups that fought Mubarak's rule in the 1990s, the Brotherhood is led by professionals with modern educations -- engineers, doctors, lawyers and academics. The core membership is middle-class or lower middle-class.

As we noted last week when Reuters began embedding this deliberately deceptive rhetoric in its stories on the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas -- which is considered a terrorist organization by the European Union as well as by the United States -- does not simply believe in "armed struggle" against Israel.  In violation of the Reuters Handbook, Stewart is employing a misleading euphemism to conceal the Islamist commitment to eradicating Israel and carrying out a genocide of the Jewish people.

Stewart then repeats the incoherent suggestion that a "professional" and educated leadership on the one hand, and the adoption of violent, totalitarian aims on the other, are somehow mutually exclusive.  We beg to differ.