Shunpiking Online Vo.4 No.2 "intelligence gaps" or disinformation?

HALIFAX (10 February 2007) - ALONGSIDE the BBC from the United Kingdom, The New York Times has become one of the premiere showcases of how the disinformation is done in the leading corporate media of the Anglo-American world.

A piece from Washington bureau reporter David Cloud appearing on page 6 of the main news section in the Feb 10 editions of the NY Times, reproduced below, exemplifies how this works in a specific case. The main issue appears in the sixth paragraph, in which reporter David Cloud presumably characterises the key finding of the report of the Pentagon inspector-general's report in the following terms:

"while the Feith team did not violate any laws or knowingly mislead Congress, it made dubious interpretations of intelligence reports and shared them with senior officials without making clear that its findings had already been discounted or discredited by the main intelligence agencies."

However, the Times editors mute this finding.

The headline attached by the Times editors - and the direct quotes [as distinct from characterisations or summaries] of officials' remarks appearing in the first and third paragraphs - appear far less stigmatising and far more neutral.

They highlight for the reader "intelligence gaps" in the headline, "alternative intelligence" (directly quoting Sen. Levin wearing his Armed Services Committee chairman's hat in the first paragraph), or "not fully supported by the available intelligence" (directly quoting Pentagon acting inspector-general Tom Gimble in the third paragraph).

Notwithstanding any imputation about the role or intention of those like Douglas Feith who ordered and prepared the presentation to Congress, the warranted rational conclusion that flows from sharing "dubious interpretations of intelligence reports ... without making clear that its findings had already been discounted or discredited" is that facts were spun into half-truths, i.e., lies and disinformation.

This is precisely the critical disclosure that goes missing in such phrasings as "intelligence gaps" and "not fully supported by the available intelligence".