Patterico’s Pontifications catches what strikes me as a very serious omission.
The L.A. Times ran an edited-down version of a Reuters story. The opening paragraphs were similar (though Patterico’s commenters expressed some concern about a few wording changes, which I won’t focus on here); I quote from the Reuters account:
The United States and Italy on Friday disagreed on the conclusions of a joint investigation into the killing of an Italian agent by U.S. troops in Iraq, further straining ties between the two allies.
U.S. soldiers killed Italian intelligence officer Nicola Calipari on March 4 when they opened fire on a car heading for Baghdad airport in which he was escorting Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, who had just been released by kidnappers.
U.S. officials said the soldiers followed their rules of engagement in firing on the car as it moved toward a checkpoint and should not be punished. Italy disputed this and left open the possibility of pursuing the matter in the courts.
So far, so good. But now here is the section of the story that discusses the specifics of the disagreement (emphasis mine):
| Reuters original | L.A. Times edit |
| A U.S. Army official earlier this week said Italy was disputing two factual issues in the report: the car’s speed as it approached the checkpoint and the nature of communications between the Italians and U.S. forces before the incident. | A U.S. Army official said this week that Italy was disputing two issues in the report: the car’s speed as it approached the checkpoint and the nature of communications between the Italians and American forces before the shooting. |
| The Army official said one of the “trip wires” in the incident was that “there was, in fact, poor communications between the Italians and the Americans.” | [Not reproduced in the L.A. Times] |
| Italy’s government has said the Italians had been driving slowly, received no warning and had advised U.S. authorities of their mission to evacuate Sgrena from Iraq. | Italy’s government has said the Italians were driving slowly, received no warning, and advised U.S. authorities of their mission to evacuate Sgrena from Iraq. |
| The U.S. Army said the car was “speeding” toward the checkpoint, that U.S. soldiers tried to get it to stop by using hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and firing warning shots then shot into its engine block when it did not stop. | The Army says the car was speeding toward the checkpoint and that U.S. soldiers tried to get it to stop by using hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and firing warning shots, and then shot into its engine block when it did not stop. |
| CBS news has reported that a U.S. satellite had filmed the shooting and that it had been established the car carrying Calipari was traveling at more than 60 mph per hour as it approached the U.S. checkpoint in Baghdad. | [Not reproduced in the L.A. Times] |
| Iraqis often complain that U.S. troops are too quick to fire from checkpoints that are difficult to spot. | [Not reproduced in the L.A. Times] |
Now I realize that the L.A. Times probably had to cut the story down in some measure — but was it really proper to cut the “CBS news has reported that a U.S. satellite had filmed the shooting and that it had been established the car carrying Calipari was traveling at more than 60 [miles] per hour as it approached the U.S. checkpoint in Baghdad” paragraph?
Without the paragraph, the matter sounds like a swearing contest — the Italians say the Italians were driving slowly, the Americans say they were speeding (which is how the L.A. Times story reports). With the paragraph, though, it sounds like the Americans were indeed right about the car going fast, and the surviving Italian passenger, journalist Giulia Sgrena, who apparently said the car was going at around 30 mph, was wrong.
Perhaps the U.S. military may be faulted on other grounds; but if the CBS is right, then a big part of the factual conflict that the L.A. Times describes seems to be resolved in the U.S. military’s favor. After describing the dispute, shouldn’t the L.A. Times have given this critical piece of evidence related to the dispute? (Some of Patterico’s commenters suggested that the Times might not have found the CBS account credible, but unless there’s really strong evidence that it’s false, it seems to me that the account has to be at least mentioned, even if the newspaper would then explain why that account may be worth discounting.)
Interestingly, even the Islamic Republic [of Iran] News Agency article on this notes the satellite claim, but then gives a counterargument: “According to Italian intelligence sources, this is not to be believed. No satellite could have filmed the event because there was too much cloud cover, they said.” Al-Jazeera likewise notes the satellite claim, as Patterico pointed out. Shouldn’t the L.A. Times have done as much?
Thanks to Patterico for uncovering this, and to InstaPundit for the pointer. If I’m mistaken on this, please do let me know. But if Patterico and I are right, then the L.A. Times seems to have seriously disserved its readers; and we’re fortunate that a blogger, despite his lack of the vaunted “several filters” that the L.A. Times provides to assure, among other things, “accuracy” and “fairness” has uncovered this lapse.
Comments are closed.