InternationalBlunder at the LA Times
Published: Saturday April 28, 2007
The Los Angeles Times on April 21 ran a very poorly written story on the Armenian Genocide resolutions pending before Congress. Under the headline, "Armenian Genocide Resolution Far from Certain," the article simply provides a forum for opponents of the resolution to explain why they believe it should not be adopted.
The thrust of the article is that Speaker Pelosi is "in a bind": should she schedule a vote on the House resolution? The article offers none of the reasons that she should, and rounds up the arguments of those who think she should not.
The author, Rich Simon, did not find out what the speaker herself thinks. He offers no evidence that Ms. Pelosi herself believes that she is in a bind - only that others want her to so believe.
Mr. Simon's article starts out by noting the President Clinton in 2000 had warned that an Armenian Genocide resolution "could damage national security." It goes on, immediately, to characterize Turkey as "an important U.S. ally" and to give the Turkish government's view "that the deaths of about 1 million Armenians in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire were not acts of genocide." Only 13 paragraphs later does the article get around to questioning the Turkish government's view - and then only by presenting the matter as if it had two sides: "Armenians, along with most historians and many Western governments, say"; "Turks say."
The article discusses at surprising length Israel's interest in the matter. It too is said to be in a bind: "The Israeli government and many of its U.S. supporters face similar crosscurrents because opposing genocide is at the core of the Jewish state, but Turkey is the closest thing to an ally Israel has in the Muslim world."
Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, speaks eloquently for the resolution ("As friends of Turkey, we need to encourage them to just recognize the truth, honor the victims and be done with it. This would only enhance Turkey's standing in the world."), and Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, speaks against it.
Then, quoting nobody, the author of the story sounds the alarm: "The issue is so incendiary that even a symbolic recognition by Congress could embolden ultranationalists [in Turkey] to unleash enough anti-American sentiment to shut down important U.S. military bases and affect Washington's position throughout the Middle East."
How did the Times end up publishing this tendentious opinion piece as a major news story?
The behind-the-scenes story is starting to come out. California Courier publisher Harut Sassounian broke the story in his syndicated column.
The Times article was originally assigned by Washington Editor Bob Ourlian to Senior Writer Mark Arax. Mr. Arax submitted an article, which was meant for Page One. But Managing Editor Douglas Frantz killed Mr. Arax's story and reassigned the article to Mr. Simon.
Was there something wrong with Mr. Arax's story? Mr. Frantz did not identify any problems with the article, Mr. Arax says. Rather, the problem was the identity of the author. Mr. Arax had "a conflict of interest" and a "position on the issue," Mr. Frantz said.
On which issue has Mr. Arax taken a position? Is the issue the characterization of the events of 1915 - the deliberate effort to destroy Armenian civilization in Asia Minor, the massacres, the deportations into the desert, where hundreds of thousands of Armenians wasted away in hunger, thirst, and disease, the forced conversions - as genocide? If so, then the Times itself has taken a position too. As Mr. Simon notes in the 31st paragraph of his article, "Los Angeles Times policy is to use [the word ‘genocide'] because a large body of historical evidence and authoritative recent research support the accuracy of the term to describe the events."
Mr. Frantz's stated reason for removing Mr. Arax from the assignment is unconvincing. An internal investigation at the Times should focus on the real reasons. The big question is whether Mr. Frantz himself had a conflict of interest. Did Mr. Frantz have a vested interest in getting an article like Mr. Simon's - a thinly veiled attack on the Genocide resolutions?
In his column, Mr. Sassounian notes that Mr. Frantz was Istanbul Bureau Chief for the New York Times and later an Istanbul-based investigative reporter for the Los Angeles Times. First-hand knowledge of Turkey could be a wonderful qualification. Mr. Frantz could look at Mr. Simon's article, circle the paragraph that starts, "Turks say there was no government-sponsored program targeting Armenians," and scribble the following note: "Not true: That's not what Orhan Pamuk, a Turk who won the Nobel Prize last year, says. It's not what so many Turkish scholars, editors, publishers, and activists say. It's what Turkish ultranationalists say. Rephrase."
Mr. Frantz is the author of numerous articles on national security issues and is working on a book that touches on the issue. He therefore has an interest in maintaining good contacts within the national security establishment. But journalistic ethics preclude him from making the sort of decisions he made in this case for the sake of his friends in the State Department or the Defense Department. It is up to his bosses at the Los Angeles Times to make sure he has remained within these ethical bounds.
The Editorial Page of the Times has been a leader in advocating a healthy U.S. policy regarding the Armenian Genocide. On July 16, for example, it made this powerful statement about the recall of Ambassador Evans from Armenia for referring to the Armenian Genocide by its proper name: "The Bush administration should have the courage of its lack of conviction and explain forthrightly - not just to Armenian Americans but to all Americans who believe in calling evil by its proper name - why U.S. policy is being dictated by Ankara nationalists."
