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.

"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.)

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)

"[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

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.