The Fictioning Horror Sale
 
 

Recently Viewed clear list


Original Essays | September 15, 2014

Lois Leveen: IMG Forsooth Me Not: Shakespeare, Juliet, Her Nurse, and a Novel



There's this writer, William Shakespeare. Perhaps you've heard of him. He wrote this play, Romeo and Juliet. Maybe you've heard of it as well. It's... Continue »
  1. $18.19 Sale Hardcover add to wish list

    Juliet's Nurse

    Lois Leveen 9781476757445

spacer

This item may be
out of stock.

Click on the button below to search for this title in other formats.


Check for Availability
Add to Wishlist

The Record of the Paper: Fifty Years of the New York Times on US Foreign Policy

The Record of the Paper: Fifty Years of the New York Times on US Foreign Policy Cover

 

Synopses & Reviews

Publisher Comments:

In this meticulously researched study — the first part of a two-volume work — Howard Friel and Richard Falk demonstrate how the newspaper of record in the United States has consistently, over the last 50 years, misreported the facts related to the wars waged by the United States.

From Vietnam in the 1960s to Nicaragua in the 1980s and Iraq today, the authors accuse the New York Times of serial distortions. They claim that such coverage now threatens not only world legal order but constitutional democracy in the United States. Falk and Friel show that, despite numerous US threats to invade Iraq, and despite the fact that an invasion of one country by another implicates fundamental aspects of the UN Charter and international law, the New York Times editorial page never mentioned the words "UN Charter" or "international law" in any of its 70 editorials on Iraq from September 11, 2001, to March 20, 2003. The authors also show that the editorial page supported the Bush administration's WMD claims against Iraq, and that its magazine, op-ed and news pages performed just as poorly.

In conclusion the authors suggest an alternative editorial policy of "strict scrutiny" that incorporates the UN Charter and the US Constitution in the Times coverage of the use and threat of force by the United States and the protection of civil and human rights at home and abroad.

Review:

"Although the New York Times is often attacked by conservative critics, this meticulous dissection of its foreign policy reporting comes from two international law experts who have more in common with Noam Chomsky than Rush Limbaugh. Friel (Dogs of War: The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page) and Falk (Unlocking the Middle East) use substantial research to argue that the Times has long 'ignor[ed] international law when it applies to US foreign policy' and that the paper has willfully 'failed to make a serious effort to expose government deception and misconduct.' Presenting insightful chapters on coverage of the 1954 Geneva Accords on Vietnam, the Reagan administration's policy toward Nicaragua, the short-lived coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and more, the authors detail how the Times presented official U.S. government policy instead of what the authors would consider a real investigation (and how publication of the Pentagon Papers was the exception to the rule). Regarding more recent incidents, Friel and Falk provocatively argue that the Times's front-page coverage of Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs may have been the result of Iraqi National Congress head Ahmed Chalabi 'being paid by the US government to plant stories in the Times.' This argument, combined with the other more historical examples, should bring much attention to this skillful work." Publishers Weekly (Copyright 2004 Reed Business Information, Inc.)

Review:

"[A] meticulously researched and damning indictment of biases in the venerable paper's reportage related to U.S. military operations....[T]he current state of affairs expands the importance of the book far beyond the domain of journalists." Library Journal

Book News Annotation:

To back up their charge that the New York Times did not live up to its reputation of impartiality in providing advocacy for the current Iraq invasion, Friel, founder/president of Differentiated Information Inc. and Falk (emeritus, international law and practice, Princeton U.) analyzed its editorials for the past 50 years. They argue that not only did the influential newspaper not present dissenting views, but that its coverage of U.S. foreign policy has consistently neglected international law.
Annotation 2004 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)

Synopsis:

In this meticulously researched study — the first part of a two-volume work — Friel and Falk demonstrate their assertion that the New York Times has consistently, over the last 50 years, misreported the facts related to the wars waged by the United States.

Synopsis:

A scathing and thoroughly researched examination of the editorial practices of the world's most consulted newspaper.

Synopsis:

When the New York Times finally apologized for its coverage of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction in 2004, it was too late. The newspaper had already supported the invasion. The Bush administration was not only violating international law, it was lying to the public, using major media like the Times to spread its message.

In this meticulously researched study—the first part of a two-volume work—Howard Friel and Richard Falk demonstrate how the newspaper of record in the United States has consistently, over the last 50 years, misreported the facts related to the wars waged by the United States. From Vietnam in the 1960s to Nicaragua in the 1980s and Iraq today, the authors accuse the New York Times of serial distortions. They claim that such coverage now threatens not only world legal order but constitutional democracy in the United States.

Falk and Friel show, for example, that, despite numerous US threats to invade Iraq, and despite the fact that an invasion of one country by another implicates fundamental aspects of the UN Charter and international law, the New York Times editorial page never mentioned the words “UN Charter” or “international law” in any of its 70 editorials on Iraq from September 11, 2001, to March 20, 2003. The authors also show that the editorial page supported the Bush administration’s WMD claims against Iraq, and that its magazine, op-ed and news pages performed just as poorly.

In conclusion the authors suggest an alternative editorial policy of “strict scrutiny” that incorporates the UN Charter and the US Constitution in the Times coverage of the use and threat of force by the United States and the protection of civil and human rights at home and abroad.

About the Author

Richard Falk was Professor of International Law Emeritus at Princeton University and since 2002 is Visiting Professor of Global Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Product Details

ISBN:
9781844670192
Subtitle:
How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy
Publisher:
Verso
Author:
Friel, Howard
Author:
Falk, Richard
Subject:
Journalism
Subject:
Mass Media - Newspapers
Subject:
Journalism-Reference
Copyright:
Publication Date:
20041117
Binding:
Hardback
Grade Level:
General/trade
Language:
English
Pages:
304
Dimensions:
9.6 x 6.5 x 1.1 in 1.57 lb

Related Subjects

History and Social Science » Journalism » Reference

The Record of the Paper: Fifty Years of the New York Times on US Foreign Policy
0 stars - 0 reviews
$ In Stock
Product details 304 pages Verso - English 9781844670192 Reviews:
"Publishers Weekly Review" by , "Although the New York Times is often attacked by conservative critics, this meticulous dissection of its foreign policy reporting comes from two international law experts who have more in common with Noam Chomsky than Rush Limbaugh. Friel (Dogs of War: The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page) and Falk (Unlocking the Middle East) use substantial research to argue that the Times has long 'ignor[ed] international law when it applies to US foreign policy' and that the paper has willfully 'failed to make a serious effort to expose government deception and misconduct.' Presenting insightful chapters on coverage of the 1954 Geneva Accords on Vietnam, the Reagan administration's policy toward Nicaragua, the short-lived coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and more, the authors detail how the Times presented official U.S. government policy instead of what the authors would consider a real investigation (and how publication of the Pentagon Papers was the exception to the rule). Regarding more recent incidents, Friel and Falk provocatively argue that the Times's front-page coverage of Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs may have been the result of Iraqi National Congress head Ahmed Chalabi 'being paid by the US government to plant stories in the Times.' This argument, combined with the other more historical examples, should bring much attention to this skillful work." Publishers Weekly (Copyright 2004 Reed Business Information, Inc.)
"Review" by , "[A] meticulously researched and damning indictment of biases in the venerable paper's reportage related to U.S. military operations....[T]he current state of affairs expands the importance of the book far beyond the domain of journalists."
"Synopsis" by , In this meticulously researched study — the first part of a two-volume work — Friel and Falk demonstrate their assertion that the New York Times has consistently, over the last 50 years, misreported the facts related to the wars waged by the United States.
"Synopsis" by , A scathing and thoroughly researched examination of the editorial practices of the world's most consulted newspaper.
"Synopsis" by , When the New York Times finally apologized for its coverage of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction in 2004, it was too late. The newspaper had already supported the invasion. The Bush administration was not only violating international law, it was lying to the public, using major media like the Times to spread its message.

In this meticulously researched study—the first part of a two-volume work—Howard Friel and Richard Falk demonstrate how the newspaper of record in the United States has consistently, over the last 50 years, misreported the facts related to the wars waged by the United States. From Vietnam in the 1960s to Nicaragua in the 1980s and Iraq today, the authors accuse the New York Times of serial distortions. They claim that such coverage now threatens not only world legal order but constitutional democracy in the United States.

Falk and Friel show, for example, that, despite numerous US threats to invade Iraq, and despite the fact that an invasion of one country by another implicates fundamental aspects of the UN Charter and international law, the New York Times editorial page never mentioned the words “UN Charter” or “international law” in any of its 70 editorials on Iraq from September 11, 2001, to March 20, 2003. The authors also show that the editorial page supported the Bush administration’s WMD claims against Iraq, and that its magazine, op-ed and news pages performed just as poorly.

In conclusion the authors suggest an alternative editorial policy of “strict scrutiny” that incorporates the UN Charter and the US Constitution in the Times coverage of the use and threat of force by the United States and the protection of civil and human rights at home and abroad.
spacer
spacer
  • back to top
Follow us on...




Powell's City of Books is an independent bookstore in Portland, Oregon, that fills a whole city block with more than a million new, used, and out of print books. Shop those shelves — plus literally millions more books, DVDs, and gifts — here at Powells.com.