Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
1166L'association FAIR-L, — pour Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting Media analysis, critiques and news reports, — donne régulièrement une excellente analyse critique de la nouvelle attitude des médias américains, notamment en fonction de ce qu'on peut désormais percevoir comme un alignement général sur la politique gouvernementale. Le cas particulier ici concerne le New York Times et son attitude vis-à-vis de l'attaque américaine sur le village de Niazi Kala le 30 décembre 2001, attaque qui a fait de nombreux morts civils. L'analyse est faite, principalement, en comparaison (ici utilisée en référence) avec le traitement que fait la presse britannique de cette même affaire. (On peut lire par ailleurs, dans notre rubrique Journal sur ce site, pour la semaine du 29 décembre 2001 au 5 janvier 2002, la présentation que nous faisons de cette question du traitement par la presse occidentale des pertes civiles afghanes dues aux attaques américaines.)
[Il est remarquable de noter à cette occasion, qui est évidemment une conformation bien plus qu'une exception, la différence radicale de traitement des informations impliquant les USA et la guerre contre le terrorisme, entre les deux principales presses anglo-saxonnes, la presse britannique et la presse américaine. Il y a là une différence qui apparaît de plus en plus comme étant bien plus qu'une circonstance. Cette différence reflète l'évolution divergente des opinions générales de ces deux pays qui sont les deux pôles anglo-saxons, et une évolution qui s'inscrit bien plus dans le champ culturel que dans le champ plus anecdotique et plus circonstanciel de la seule information. Littéralement, et certains sites et commentateurs américains de tendance oppositionnelle ou dissidente l'expriment de cette façon, la presse britannique est devenue, aux USA, pour ces milieux du commentaire politique, une source d'information “libre” dans un monde de l'information américaine perçu comme orienté et contrôlé de facto par les forces du conformisme qui soutiennent le pouvoir.]
FAIR-L est connue pour sa rigueur d'analyse du comportement des médias et on celle-ci, dans ce cas, avec toute la précision voulue. Cela donne un cas techniquement intéressant et, pour ceux qui entretiennent la mémoire des choses de façon plus systématique qu'en réponse aux consignes du conformisme, cela donne aussi un contraste saisissant avec le comportement de cette presse américaine lors de la guerre du Viet-nâm. Bien sûr, l'intérêt de l'exemple choisi est que le New York Times est un quotidien chargé d'une réputation formidable, à la fois comme exemple de probité professionnelle, à la fois comme journal quotidien classé libéral, c'est-à-dire à gauche selon les normes américaines, à la fois comme organe de presse d'une rigoureuse indépendance. L'analyse est par conséquent particulièrement éclairante et particulièrement préoccupante pour ce qui concerne ce phénomène de l'évolution de la presse aux États-unis.
FAIR-L, January 9, 2002 — On December 30, U.S. airstrikes hit the village of Niazi Kala (also called Qalaye Niaze) in eastern Afghanistan, killing dozens of civilians. The attack was major news in several U.K. newspapers, with the Guardian and the Independent running front-page stories. The headlines were straightforward: ''U.S. Accused of Killing Over 100 Villagers in Airstrike'' (Guardian, 1/1/02); ''U.S. Accused of Killing 100 Civilians in Afghan Bombing Raid'' (Independent, 1/1/02); '''100 Villagers Killed' in U.S. Airstrike'' (London Times, 1/1/02).
In contrast, the New York Times first reported the civilian deaths at Niazi Kala under the headline ''Afghan Leader Warily Backs U.S. Bombing'' (1/2/02).
The U.N. estimated that 52 civilians were killed by the U.S. attack, including 25 children, and disputed Pentagon claims that those killed were linked to Al Qaeda. According to the U.N., ''unarmed women and children'' were ''chased and killed by American helicopters,'' some ''as they fled to shelter'' and others ''as they tried to rescue survivors'' (London Times, 1/4/02). Noting that ''innumeracy, rapid burial, damage to bodies, propaganda'' and ''remoteness'' make it difficult to reach a precise count of any of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan, the Guardian reported that surviving villagers estimated anywhere between 32 and 107 dead, with the higher number coming from staff at the local hospital (1/7/02).
The Pentagon contends that the village was a legitimate military target because it sheltered Taliban leaders, Al Qaeda fighters and an ammunition dump, and reporters who toured the destruction saw evidence of a substantial weapons cache. But local residents denied links to the Taliban or Al Qaeda,
and said that in fact many of those killed were guests in town for a wedding. As the Los Angeles Times has pointed out (1/8/02), the attack ''raises difficult questions about the accuracy of the local information the United States is getting about the whereabouts of remaining Al Qaeda fighters.''
Descriptions of the destruction in Niazi Kala from reporters on the scene have been shocking. Guardian correspondent Rory Carroll (1/7/02) reported seeing ''bloodied children's shoes and skirts, bloodied school books, the scalp of a woman with braided grey hair, butter toffees in red wrappers, wedding decorations.'' Similarly, the Los Angeles Times' Alissa J. Rubin reported ''fragments of skull with black braided hair decorated with silver thread-- an accessory common among women in this region,'' a child's ''severed
shoe'' and other evidence that ''makes clear that women and children were killed by the U.S. bombing'' (1/8/02).
The New York Times, however, has shied away from such graphic accounts. In its January 2 article, the Times treated reports that ''up to 100 villagers in Paktia Province had been killed'' not so much as a story in its own right, but as background to the issue of whether Hamid Karzai, head of the interim Afghan government, was holding firm in ''his support for the war against terrorism.'' Further details on the killings at Niazi Kala were scarce, but Times readers did learn that ''part way through the interview, an aide
entered carrying two scones'' sent by Karzai's sister-in-law in Baltimore. The Times apparently included this information to support Karzai's contention that ''things now seemed quite organized and civilized'' in
Afghanistan.
The following day, the New York Times provided more information about Niazi Kala, but once again nestled the story within an article on a related topic, this one about accusations that warlord Pacha Khan Zadran has provided false information to the U.S., leading to the airstrikes that last month struck a
convoy of tribal leaders (1/3/02). The attack on Niazi Kala-- which some have suggested was also targeted on Zadran's recommendation (Independent, 1/4/02)-- came up when the Times reported Zadran's ''assessment'' that the villagers had been linked to the Taliban and therefore legitimate targets. Commendably, the Times did contrast Zadran's version on the story with the U.N.'s ''far more chilling account of the human cost of destroying the weapons stash,'' quoting the report at some length. Unfortunately, these important details were buried in the middle of the page A15 story, reflected neither in its headline nor its lead.
In response to international pressure, including a British Member of Parliament's formal demands for an inquiry, the Pentagon has agreed to investigate the attack on Niazi Kala (Guardian, 1/4/02, 1/7/02). So far, the New York Times has not reported this fact.
The Times' poor reporting of this story comes in the midst of a general failure of the mainstream U.S. press to seriously investigate the extent of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and the legality of the U.S. attacks.
Le site de FAIR-L est
-
