Fox's Cavuto falsely claimed NY Times provided "no coverage" of Saddam Hussein's atrocities
SUMMARY: Fox News host Neil Cavuto claimed, "You'd have a very tough time finding the [New York] Times devoting even a single day of front-page coverage to all of his [Saddam Hussein's] atrocities or murders or any of his thousands of victims over the years." He also falsely asserted that the Times has provided "[l]ots of coverage of his death. No coverage of the deaths that led to it." But the Times has given repeated front-page coverage to Saddam's brutality.
On the January 4 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, host Neil Cavuto claimed, "You'd have a very tough time finding the [New York] Times devoting even a single day of front-page coverage to all of his [Saddam Hussein's] atrocities or murders or any of his thousands of victims over the years." Cavuto added that the Times provided "nonstop coverage of this front-page story about how this execution was botched" but that he did "not remember seven days of coverage, let alone one day of coverage of the hundreds of thousands of people killed under Saddam." He also falsely asserted that the Times has provided "[l]ots of coverage of his death. No coverage of the deaths that led to it."
However, a search of the Nexis database shows that the Times has given repeated front-page coverage to Saddam's brutality:
- "As Trial Nears, Poison Attack Haunts Kurds" [8/21/06]
- "Uncovering Iraq's Horrors in Desert Graves" [6/5/06]
- "At Trial in Iraq, Witnesses Tell About Torture" [12/6/05]
- "Aftereffects: The Graves; As Hussein Faded, Prisoners Were Executed" [4/28/03]
After Hussein's execution, the Times also ran a lengthy obituary, detailing his history of "imprisonment, torture, mutilation and execution." This piece ran on Pages A10-11 on December 30, 2006. The front page of that day's Times referred readers to the obituary and noted Hussein's brutal past: "For 30 Years, a Terror To Iraq and Neighbors. One of the most brutal tyrants of recent history, Saddam Hussein unleashed devastating regional wars and reduced oil-rich Iraq to a claustrophobic police state. His unflinching 30-year hold on Iraq ended in 2003 with the American invasion. Obituary, Pages A10-11, by Neil MacFarquhar."
As Media Matters for America noted, on the December 29 edition of Your World, guest host Stuart Varney suggested the Times was "mourning" Hussein's death and on the January 1 edition asked, "So, is the Times now an advocate for the Iraqi dictator?"
From the January 4 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto :
CAVUTO: Well, Saddam's been dead nearly a week, and not a day has gone by without the media, especially The New York Times, regretting it, bashing it, second-guessing it, even condemning it. But you'd have a very tough time finding the Times devoting even a single day of front-page coverage to all of his atrocities or murders or any of his thousands of victims over the years. And don't my next guests know it. James Carafano is a senior research fellow from the Heritage Foundation. And Clay Waters, editor of MRC's [the Media Research Center's] TimesWatch. Clay, it is rather startling. Lots of coverage of his death. No coverage of the deaths that led to it.
[...]
CAVUTO: I do not remember what -- seven days now of nonstop coverage of this, front-page stories about how this execution was botched, how we should have done more, from the same paper that said we're doing too much already. Leaving that aside, I do not remember seven days of coverage, let alone one day of coverage, of the hundreds of thousands of people killed under Saddam.
We (US) are supposed to be better than that. Hussein was a bad, bad guy. Still doesn't excuse how the thing was handled or covered to the world. Scarborough is right on this one.
If you mean Cavuto, I think he's wide of the mark. Wingers always talk about how the media covers U.S. errors more than foreign errors, like that's a bad thing.
I think he's wrong, but I wish he weren't. The media should be about correcting our own flaws, rather than, Pravda-like, pointing out the shortcomings of others.
It's not that the crimes of Saddam then, or of - for example - Sudan now, are not important. They are. However, I'm personally, parochially, more interested in the things that I, as a citizen, at least notionally have the power to change.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" -- Matthew 7:3
" The media should be about correcting our own flaws, rather than, Pravda-like, pointing out the shortcomings of others. "
Do you realize you just called MMFA "Pravda-like"? That's so funny.
if you read the post properly you would notice that he is talking about concentrating on the problems of one's own COUNTRY/SOCIETY, which is what Pravda was notorious in failing to do.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought Pravda was a communistic news outlet that was bent on pointing out flaws of others so that their twisted idea of reality seemed better to those who believed them.
Izvestia meant news. The saying in the USSR was that there was no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvetzia. They were government propaganda arms that served NO infoming function, which seems to be what YOU want the US media to become. As for MMFA, NOT conforming to your sad delusional fantasies is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Thanks for confirming that I said correctly what I thought I did.
BTW, is it normal for you to call people names who you are chatting with? Is that an acceptable practice at this site? I don't like to call people I don't know names but if it's ok at this site, I'll give it a try.
you are pretty entertaining, but I'd suggest reading more carefully before posting.Helps your credibility.
Look into it
At least HBL can say I don't know what I'm talking about politely. If you're gonna just rant and rave and call me names and be all impolite like that, I'd suggest you read the "terms of use" before you continue being derogatory towards me. MMFA allows opinions from all political views as long as they are relevent. They do NOT allow derogatory statements like yours. [link to mediamatters.org]
I was talking about this previous MMFA thing where Scarborough is reaming O'Reilly for calling NBC 'sympathizers'.
[link to mediamatters.org]
Scarborough...although I think he's a bit of a blowhard... is correct in criticizing how this execution was handled.
What sort of moral retardation is required to miss the elementary moral principle that we are MOST responsible for OUR actions and the easily discernable consequences OF our actions? We SHOULD be most concerned with that. Cheerleading is NOT the function of the press
Will someone at Fox tell Cavuto and his fellow droids to get targets. I used to laugh at their over-the-top assaults on the Times and imaginary Liberal Bias. Now I jusy yawn.
and no Nexis account? It's almost as if Fox is purposefully trying to mislead us into thinking the NYT never ran stories that shed Saddam in a bad light.
Did he mean a full page add on the front, or just a line?
Well, Cavuto does have a point. Neither the NYT, nor any other U.S. paper detailed the murder of thousands by Saddam paired with an accompanying expose of how he was our very good buddy in the arms trade and a political wheel to use against the Soviets. Saddam was a tool. When his benefits wore out, he swung. More went to the grave than just Saddam.
In many politics boards that I frequent on the internet, most of the time right wingers will post something crying and yelling about how, "I bet we won't see this in the NY Times." And it's so funny to me, because most of the time, travel over to the NY Times' website, punch in the requested article that they "won't address" and sure enough, up it pops. Talk about not even looking before posting something silly. Jeesh. I like to debate with them, but when they don't even do basic research, it's an easy foil.
Maybe he should consider that the reason more coverage was given to Saddam's execution than to his atrocities is that the execution happened last week (it's what's called news) while the atrocities happened over two decade ago meaning that anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature who hasn't been on a desert island for the last thirty years ALREADY KNOWS ABOUT IT!!! Hey Cavuto...join the rest of us in the twenty first century.
magnolialover said "I like to debate with them, but when they don't even do basic research, it's an easy foil."
Seems to me that debate with many of them would be fruitless. If they don't have facts and don't respect the truth, you will have a hard time convincing them. And they've been conditioned not to believe anything the "liberal media" says, so I would expect them to argue that (a) you can't trust the liberal media (NYT) (b) the liberal media and NYT says it reported on the Hussein execution, therefore (c) you can't believe that the NYT reported on the Hussein execution. Possibly followed by "Everyone knows that Neixis is some kind of liberal media." How do you debate with that kind of illogic?