Whoops.
Bush White House, one-time spokesman Scott McClellan has published his book.
Here's what he says about the media, according to AP, the primary source for 'From News Reports' piece that appeared in the IHT's 4 star edition today.
He excludes himself from major involvement in some of what he calls the administration's biggest blunders, for instance the decision to go to war and the initial campaign to sell that decision to the American people. But he doesn't spare himself entirely, saying, "I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be.
He includes criticism for the reporters whose questions he fielded. The news media, he says, were "complicit enablers" for focusing more on "covering the march to war instead of the necessity of war."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/28/america/Bush-McClellan-Book.php
I am looking forward to the IHT's ongoing coverage of this book, and if anyone from the IHT will run their finger down the index of his book and look for NYT and Millar, J. and tell us all what he has to say.
Thursday, 29 May 2008
IHT Information Ebru at www.aplaceintheauvergne.blogspot.com is back
Just so you know, IHT Information Ebru at www.aplaceintheauvergne.blogspot.com is back, due to a short 'holiday' promoting my book A PLACE IN MY COUNTRY in the UK.
www.aplaceintheauvergne.blogspot.com is many things, but in part a note book on how information hierarchies for the IHT could be thought of in a fresher, more relevant way.
The labels on this blog are indicative of this.
www.aplaceintheauvergne.blogspot.com is many things, but in part a note book on how information hierarchies for the IHT could be thought of in a fresher, more relevant way.
The labels on this blog are indicative of this.
NYT, IHT and Save Darfur Coaltion.
So, I've written to the press office of the Save Darfur coaliton (Save Darfur Press Office
Office: 202-478-6174Email: press@savedarfur.org.)
We'll see what they say, but here's what I said:
Hello there,
I am a huge fan of the International Herald Tribune, fully owned by the New York Times, and now referred to since a few days as the Global Edition of the New York Times.
My goal is to keep them honest, because the IHT is my favourite newspaper.
I therefore run a blog about them called www.ihtreaders.blogspot.com It has a small audience but certainly an influential one judging from my inbox in terms of European newspaper editors, journalists and of course senior IHT and NYT staff.
I'd like to follow up a recent post I made about the IHT's coverage of the joint presidential candidate statement that appeared in the NYT but did not appear in the IHT.
I've written about this at http://ihtreaders.blogspot.com/2008/05/iht-four-star-edition-and-ap-or-is-nyt.html
What I would like to know is the following:
a) Did the NYT charge you for your full page advertisement?
b) If so what did they charge you?
c) If you paid to place an advert in the NYT for this statement, why did you elect not to place an advertisement in the IHT? Given the IHT is probably the most widely read newspaper in the world by global opinion formers, this seems odd. Were you not offered the opportunity, or was it a cost issue?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ian Walthew
www.ianwalthew.com
www.aplaceintheauvergne.blogspot.com
www.ihtreaders.blogspot.com
Office: 202-478-6174Email: press@savedarfur.org.)
We'll see what they say, but here's what I said:
Hello there,
I am a huge fan of the International Herald Tribune, fully owned by the New York Times, and now referred to since a few days as the Global Edition of the New York Times.
My goal is to keep them honest, because the IHT is my favourite newspaper.
I therefore run a blog about them called www.ihtreaders.blogspot.com It has a small audience but certainly an influential one judging from my inbox in terms of European newspaper editors, journalists and of course senior IHT and NYT staff.
I'd like to follow up a recent post I made about the IHT's coverage of the joint presidential candidate statement that appeared in the NYT but did not appear in the IHT.
I've written about this at http://ihtreaders.blogspot.com/2008/05/iht-four-star-edition-and-ap-or-is-nyt.html
What I would like to know is the following:
a) Did the NYT charge you for your full page advertisement?
b) If so what did they charge you?
c) If you paid to place an advert in the NYT for this statement, why did you elect not to place an advertisement in the IHT? Given the IHT is probably the most widely read newspaper in the world by global opinion formers, this seems odd. Were you not offered the opportunity, or was it a cost issue?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ian Walthew
www.ianwalthew.com
www.aplaceintheauvergne.blogspot.com
www.ihtreaders.blogspot.com
IHT Four Star Edition and AP, or is NYT?
These previous posts bring us to the issue of how reliant the 4 star European edition is (the one I receive) on AP, because it closes before some NYT journalists have filed. What's often not clear is whether the smaller pieces come from AP, or from the NYT's journalist.
And you can see for yourself the differences between IHT edited AP or NYT stories, and their take on it, and the original source material the IHT editors work from (in this case, clearly a NYT piece, but the example is interesting nonetheless);
Here is the original and first piece (AP always first) filed by AP on the issue of the 3 presidential candidates making a declaration on Darfur.
All 3 US presidential candidates pledge to seek an end to violence in Darfur if elected
The Associated Press
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
WASHINGTON: In a rare show of bipartisan unity, the three presidential candidates lent their names to a statement and newspaper ad Wednesday accusing the Sudanese government of genocide in the Darfur region and urging an end to the violence.
Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton joined with Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain in signing the ad in The New York Times headlined "GENOCIDE."
"We stand united and demand that the genocide and violence in Darfur be brought to an end," says the ad. It was paid for by the SaveDarfur Coalition, which describes itself on its Web site as an alliance of over 180 faith-based, advocacy and humanitarian organizations.
The coalition has posted videos on its Web site of the candidates discussing Darfur and a joint statement from the candidates condemning the Sudanese government as chiefly responsible for the violence and for failing to adhere to a peace agreement.
"We wish to make clear to the Sudanese government that on this moral issue of tremendous importance, there is no divide between us," the statement said in part. "Even as we campaign for the presidency, we will use our standing as senators to press for the steps needed to ensure that the United States honors, in practice and in deed, its commitment to the cause of peace and protection of Darfur's innocent citizenry ... It would be a huge mistake for the Khartoum regime to think that it will benefit by running out the clock on the Bush administration.
"If peace and security for the people of Sudan are not in place when one of us is inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009, we pledge that the next administration will pursue these goals with unstinting resolve."
Fighting has raged in Darfur since 2003, when ethnic African tribesman took up arms, complaining of decades of neglect and discrimination by the Sudanese Arab-dominated government. The Sudanese government is accused of unleashing janjaweed militia forces to commit atrocities against ethnic African communities in the fight with rebel groups. The government denies the accusations.
More than 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been displaced in Darfur. President Bush has also labeled the situation there genocide.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/28/america/NA-POL-US-Presidential-Candidates-Darfur.php
NOW, THIS IS HOW THE STORY WAS EDITED INTO A 'BRIEFLY' FOR THE FOUR STAR EDITION OF THE IHT - THE PIECE WAS NOT CREDITED TO AP, NOR THE FAMOUS 'FROM NEWS REPORTS'. IN FACT IT WAS WRITTEN BY, WELL, NO ONE APPARENTLY. BUT AS WE WILL FIND OUT LATER, IT IS IN FACT EDITED FROM A NYT JOURNALIST'S STORY.
BRIEFLY, AMERICAS, PAGE 4, 4 STAR EDITION, THURSDAY MAY 29TH.
3 WHO SEEK PRESIDENCY JOIN IN WARNING SUDAN
WASHINGTON: The three senators who would be president have agreed to a rare joint statement accusing the Sudanese government of atrocities against civilians in Darfur and warning it not to try and run out the clock on the Bush administration, which has called the killings in Darfur genocide.
"Today, we wish to make clear to the Sudanese government that on this moral issue of tremendous importance, there is no divide between us," declared a joint statement released Wednesday by the Save Darfur Coalition on behalf of Senators Hilary Rodham Clinton, JOhn McCain and Barack Obama. [NB: NO MENTION OF ADVERT IN IHT OWNED NYT] "If peace and security for the people of Sudan are not in place when one of us is inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009, we pledge that the next administration will pursue these goals with unstinting resolve."
The statement is largely symbolic [NB: WOULD THAT BE NEWS OR NEWS ANALYSIS OR OPINION?] because the three are not proposing any specific congressional action against Sudan. But it is meant to send a message [NB: IS SENDING A MESSAGE BY THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE USA LARGELY SYMBOLIC? I'D SAY NOT] to the government of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan that the next American president will continue to sound an [SYMBOLIC?] alarm on Darfur.
NOW WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE PIECE ON IHT.COM BY NYT'S JOURNALIST
HELEN COOPER
In rare move, 3 candidates in U.S. join in pledge on Darfur
WASHINGTON: The three senators who would be president have agreed to a rare joint statement accusing the Sudanese government of atrocities against civilians in Darfur and warning it not to try to run out the clock on the Bush administration, which has called the killings in Darfur genocide. [NB: NO MENTION OF ADVERT IN IHT OWNED NYT]
"Today, we wish to make clear to the Sudanese government that on this moral issue of tremendous importance, there is no divide between us," declared a joint statement to be released on Wednesday by the Save Darfur Coalition on behalf of Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama. "If peace and security for the people of Sudan are not in place when one of us is inaugurated as president on Jan. 20, 2009, we pledge that the next administration will pursue these goals with unstinting resolve."
The statement is largely symbolic because the three are not proposing any specific congressional action against Sudan. Nor are they calling for tangible steps by the United States to put pressure on the Sudanese government. For instance, the statement is silent about whether the Bush administration should use its turn as president of the United Nations Security Council in June to seek further ways to press Sudan.
But the statement is meant to send a message to the government of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan that the next American president will continue to sound an alarm on Darfur. Under the Bush administration, the United States has sought to harness international pressure, particularly at the United Nations, to get Sudan to accept a contingent of international peacekeeping forces in Darfur.
The administration has also entered into talks with Sudan and is holding out the prospect of normalizing its diplomatic ties with the United States and removing it from a list of state supporters of terrorism if Sudan agrees to allow Thai and Nepalese peacekeepers into Darfur.
At least 200,000 people have been killed there since the Arab-dominated government of Sudan unleashed tribal militias known as the janjaweed on non-Arab rebel groups and civilians. The Sudanese government says that the death toll in Darfur has been exaggerated and denies that the killing there amounts to genocide, as President George W. Bush has said.
[CF THIS NYT FACTUAL BACKGROUND WITH THAT OF AP: Fighting has raged in Darfur since 2003, when ethnic African tribesman took up arms, complaining of decades of neglect and discrimination by the Sudanese Arab-dominated government. The Sudanese government is accused of unleashing janjaweed militia forces to commit atrocities against ethnic African communities in the fight with rebel groups. The government denies the accusations.More than 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been displaced in Darfur. President Bush has also labeled the situation there genocide. NOT MUCH IN IT IS THERE?]
The president of the Save Darfur Coalition, Jerry Fowler, said the joint statement from the presidential candidates should serve as a warning to Bashir's government. "The tangible piece will be on Jan. 20, 2009," Fowler said, "when whichever one of these candidates wins the presidency and makes Darfur a Day 1 issue."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/28/america/28pledge.php
OUT OF CURIOSITY, TO SEE HOW WELL ROUNDED THESE PIECES ARE, I THOUGHT I'D CHECK IN WITH THE SAVE DARFUR COALITION AND SEE WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY.
HERE'S THEIR PRESS RELEASE
CLINTON, McCAIN, OBAMA JOINT STATEMENT: ‘WE STAND UNITED ON SUDAN’
Candidates pledge ‘unstinting resolve’ in ending Darfur genocide, Save Darfur Coalition hails historic joint statement on ending Sudan crisis
WASHINGTON – The Save Darfur Coalition today hailed the historic joint statement by the three remaining U.S. presidential candidates stating their united resolve to end the Darfur genocide and bring peace and security to all Sudan.
“As we campaign for President of the United States over the next several months, we expect there to be significant focus on the many differences between us,” reads the statement, which is also featured today in a New York Times advertisement. “It is with this awareness that we are taking the uncommon step of issuing a joint statement about an issue. After more than five years of genocide, the Sudanese government and its proxies continue to commit atrocities against civilians in Darfur. This is unacceptable to the American people and to the world community.”
A copy of the advertisement can be viewed here: www.savedarfur.org/darfurunited.
“With this unequivocal joint statement, these candidates have elected to transcend their differences in party and policies and unite for the peace and protection of the people in Sudan,” said Save Darfur Coalition board chair Rev. Gloria White-Hammond, M.D. “Candidates should bear in mind, though, that the work of Darfur advocates is not done. The constituency of conscience that has come together around Darfur is determined to make clear to the candidates that a plan for peace in Sudan is a prerequisite for the White House.”
“The unanimous resolve among the candidates to bring an end to the genocide is a testament to the gravity of the situation in Darfur and also the effectiveness of the advocates’ campaigns to move U.S. and world leaders to action,” said Larry Sabato, founder and director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “In fact, this may be the first issue to generate a joint statement of this magnitude since the foreign policy advisors to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Thomas E. Dewey asserted their respective candidates’ resolve to end World War II prior to the 1944 presidential election.”
Ongoing and escalating violence in Sudan – including the recent destruction of the contested town of Abyei – reinforces the importance of this united determination from the candidates. Following the Justice and Equality Movement attack on the capital May 10, reports from the ground indicate that the Sudanese government’s response has been heavy-handed and rife with human rights abuses. The reports indicate widespread detentions and disappearances, summary executions, crackdowns on Darfuri journalists and lawyers, and the looting of Darfuri homes and businesses in and around Khartoum. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir virtually promised a new round of brutal attacks in Darfur on May 20, leaving millions of civilians in the villages, cities and IDP camps in fear for their lives.
Throughout the presidential campaign, activists across the country have engaged the candidates on Darfur through initiatives like Ask the Candidates (www.askthecandidates.org) and Save Darfur’s Voter Education Project. The coalition launched its voter education project (www.savedarfur.org/candidates) last November – which features two-minute YouTube op-eds from the candidates. In Iowa and New Hampshire, hundreds of caucus and primary-goers signed full-page advertisements pressing Republican and Democratic presidential candidates to outline a clear policy to end the suffering in Darfur and to make the prevention of future atrocities a priority in their campaigns. The coalition will continue its efforts to ensure the Darfur genocide remains a central topic in the race for the White House.
“Today, we wish to make clear to the Sudanese government that on this moral issue of tremendous importance, there is no divide between us,” the statement adds. “If peace and security for the people of Sudan are not in place when one of us is inaugurated as President on January 20, 2009, we pledge that the next Administration will pursue these goals with unstinting resolve.”
http://www.savedarfur.org/newsroom/releases/clinton_mccain_obama_joint_statement_we_stand_united_on_sudan/
The good news here is that neither AP nor the NYT got their Darfur data from this press release, and nor did Helene Cooper get her quote from president of the Save Darfur Coalition, Jerry Fowler, from the press release either.
Personally, I think the running of the advert in the NYT, given the IHT is now that paper's global edition (WE ARE YET TO SEE THE ADVERT, AT LEAST IN MY EDITION OF THEIR GLOBAL EDITION SO SOME WAY TO GO FOR THE NYT'S ADVERTISING SALES TEAM TO WORK OUT THEY DO NOW HAVE A GLOBAL EDITION. HOWEVER THERE WAS A VERY NICE, AS EVER UNREAD, ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT FROM A NIGERIAN OIL STATE) is relevant and should have been mentioned in both Cooper's piece and the IHT's briefly.
So, that's high marks for the IHT/NYT and AP on fleshing out background without relying on the Coalition's press release.
A tap on the hand for not mentioning that this statement was infact an advert run in the NYT.
Poor marks, very, for the NYT advertising sale's team because I would have liked to have read that advertisement yesterday here in Europe, and no doubt SDJ could have done with the bread.
Bread (that's English slang for MONEY) from the victims of Darfur - or was the advert a gift from the NYT to the Coalition, in which case we need to be told: either the NYT is taking money from people trying to save, according to their own journalist, 2.5 million displaced people - that's a nice of the NYT - or they gave the advert to the Coalition - in which case, we also need to be told because it's highly relevant to the integrity and independence of the journalism surrounding the advert.
And what I'd like to be made clear is correct and clear sourcing of the Brieflys that appear in the IHT - wire, or NYT?
This is the type of thing I'd like to be keeping a closer eye on, but it's all about time.
Is there another IHT fan out there who wants to come and help me with this blog?
And you can see for yourself the differences between IHT edited AP or NYT stories, and their take on it, and the original source material the IHT editors work from (in this case, clearly a NYT piece, but the example is interesting nonetheless);
Here is the original and first piece (AP always first) filed by AP on the issue of the 3 presidential candidates making a declaration on Darfur.
All 3 US presidential candidates pledge to seek an end to violence in Darfur if elected
The Associated Press
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
WASHINGTON: In a rare show of bipartisan unity, the three presidential candidates lent their names to a statement and newspaper ad Wednesday accusing the Sudanese government of genocide in the Darfur region and urging an end to the violence.
Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton joined with Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain in signing the ad in The New York Times headlined "GENOCIDE."
"We stand united and demand that the genocide and violence in Darfur be brought to an end," says the ad. It was paid for by the SaveDarfur Coalition, which describes itself on its Web site as an alliance of over 180 faith-based, advocacy and humanitarian organizations.
The coalition has posted videos on its Web site of the candidates discussing Darfur and a joint statement from the candidates condemning the Sudanese government as chiefly responsible for the violence and for failing to adhere to a peace agreement.
"We wish to make clear to the Sudanese government that on this moral issue of tremendous importance, there is no divide between us," the statement said in part. "Even as we campaign for the presidency, we will use our standing as senators to press for the steps needed to ensure that the United States honors, in practice and in deed, its commitment to the cause of peace and protection of Darfur's innocent citizenry ... It would be a huge mistake for the Khartoum regime to think that it will benefit by running out the clock on the Bush administration.
"If peace and security for the people of Sudan are not in place when one of us is inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009, we pledge that the next administration will pursue these goals with unstinting resolve."
Fighting has raged in Darfur since 2003, when ethnic African tribesman took up arms, complaining of decades of neglect and discrimination by the Sudanese Arab-dominated government. The Sudanese government is accused of unleashing janjaweed militia forces to commit atrocities against ethnic African communities in the fight with rebel groups. The government denies the accusations.
More than 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been displaced in Darfur. President Bush has also labeled the situation there genocide.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/28/america/NA-POL-US-Presidential-Candidates-Darfur.php
NOW, THIS IS HOW THE STORY WAS EDITED INTO A 'BRIEFLY' FOR THE FOUR STAR EDITION OF THE IHT - THE PIECE WAS NOT CREDITED TO AP, NOR THE FAMOUS 'FROM NEWS REPORTS'. IN FACT IT WAS WRITTEN BY, WELL, NO ONE APPARENTLY. BUT AS WE WILL FIND OUT LATER, IT IS IN FACT EDITED FROM A NYT JOURNALIST'S STORY.
BRIEFLY, AMERICAS, PAGE 4, 4 STAR EDITION, THURSDAY MAY 29TH.
3 WHO SEEK PRESIDENCY JOIN IN WARNING SUDAN
WASHINGTON: The three senators who would be president have agreed to a rare joint statement accusing the Sudanese government of atrocities against civilians in Darfur and warning it not to try and run out the clock on the Bush administration, which has called the killings in Darfur genocide.
"Today, we wish to make clear to the Sudanese government that on this moral issue of tremendous importance, there is no divide between us," declared a joint statement released Wednesday by the Save Darfur Coalition on behalf of Senators Hilary Rodham Clinton, JOhn McCain and Barack Obama. [NB: NO MENTION OF ADVERT IN IHT OWNED NYT] "If peace and security for the people of Sudan are not in place when one of us is inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009, we pledge that the next administration will pursue these goals with unstinting resolve."
The statement is largely symbolic [NB: WOULD THAT BE NEWS OR NEWS ANALYSIS OR OPINION?] because the three are not proposing any specific congressional action against Sudan. But it is meant to send a message [NB: IS SENDING A MESSAGE BY THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE USA LARGELY SYMBOLIC? I'D SAY NOT] to the government of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan that the next American president will continue to sound an [SYMBOLIC?] alarm on Darfur.
NOW WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE PIECE ON IHT.COM BY NYT'S JOURNALIST
HELEN COOPER
In rare move, 3 candidates in U.S. join in pledge on Darfur
WASHINGTON: The three senators who would be president have agreed to a rare joint statement accusing the Sudanese government of atrocities against civilians in Darfur and warning it not to try to run out the clock on the Bush administration, which has called the killings in Darfur genocide. [NB: NO MENTION OF ADVERT IN IHT OWNED NYT]
"Today, we wish to make clear to the Sudanese government that on this moral issue of tremendous importance, there is no divide between us," declared a joint statement to be released on Wednesday by the Save Darfur Coalition on behalf of Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama. "If peace and security for the people of Sudan are not in place when one of us is inaugurated as president on Jan. 20, 2009, we pledge that the next administration will pursue these goals with unstinting resolve."
The statement is largely symbolic because the three are not proposing any specific congressional action against Sudan. Nor are they calling for tangible steps by the United States to put pressure on the Sudanese government. For instance, the statement is silent about whether the Bush administration should use its turn as president of the United Nations Security Council in June to seek further ways to press Sudan.
But the statement is meant to send a message to the government of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan that the next American president will continue to sound an alarm on Darfur. Under the Bush administration, the United States has sought to harness international pressure, particularly at the United Nations, to get Sudan to accept a contingent of international peacekeeping forces in Darfur.
The administration has also entered into talks with Sudan and is holding out the prospect of normalizing its diplomatic ties with the United States and removing it from a list of state supporters of terrorism if Sudan agrees to allow Thai and Nepalese peacekeepers into Darfur.
At least 200,000 people have been killed there since the Arab-dominated government of Sudan unleashed tribal militias known as the janjaweed on non-Arab rebel groups and civilians. The Sudanese government says that the death toll in Darfur has been exaggerated and denies that the killing there amounts to genocide, as President George W. Bush has said.
[CF THIS NYT FACTUAL BACKGROUND WITH THAT OF AP: Fighting has raged in Darfur since 2003, when ethnic African tribesman took up arms, complaining of decades of neglect and discrimination by the Sudanese Arab-dominated government. The Sudanese government is accused of unleashing janjaweed militia forces to commit atrocities against ethnic African communities in the fight with rebel groups. The government denies the accusations.More than 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been displaced in Darfur. President Bush has also labeled the situation there genocide. NOT MUCH IN IT IS THERE?]
The president of the Save Darfur Coalition, Jerry Fowler, said the joint statement from the presidential candidates should serve as a warning to Bashir's government. "The tangible piece will be on Jan. 20, 2009," Fowler said, "when whichever one of these candidates wins the presidency and makes Darfur a Day 1 issue."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/28/america/28pledge.php
OUT OF CURIOSITY, TO SEE HOW WELL ROUNDED THESE PIECES ARE, I THOUGHT I'D CHECK IN WITH THE SAVE DARFUR COALITION AND SEE WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY.
HERE'S THEIR PRESS RELEASE
CLINTON, McCAIN, OBAMA JOINT STATEMENT: ‘WE STAND UNITED ON SUDAN’
Candidates pledge ‘unstinting resolve’ in ending Darfur genocide, Save Darfur Coalition hails historic joint statement on ending Sudan crisis
WASHINGTON – The Save Darfur Coalition today hailed the historic joint statement by the three remaining U.S. presidential candidates stating their united resolve to end the Darfur genocide and bring peace and security to all Sudan.
“As we campaign for President of the United States over the next several months, we expect there to be significant focus on the many differences between us,” reads the statement, which is also featured today in a New York Times advertisement. “It is with this awareness that we are taking the uncommon step of issuing a joint statement about an issue. After more than five years of genocide, the Sudanese government and its proxies continue to commit atrocities against civilians in Darfur. This is unacceptable to the American people and to the world community.”
A copy of the advertisement can be viewed here: www.savedarfur.org/darfurunited.
“With this unequivocal joint statement, these candidates have elected to transcend their differences in party and policies and unite for the peace and protection of the people in Sudan,” said Save Darfur Coalition board chair Rev. Gloria White-Hammond, M.D. “Candidates should bear in mind, though, that the work of Darfur advocates is not done. The constituency of conscience that has come together around Darfur is determined to make clear to the candidates that a plan for peace in Sudan is a prerequisite for the White House.”
“The unanimous resolve among the candidates to bring an end to the genocide is a testament to the gravity of the situation in Darfur and also the effectiveness of the advocates’ campaigns to move U.S. and world leaders to action,” said Larry Sabato, founder and director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “In fact, this may be the first issue to generate a joint statement of this magnitude since the foreign policy advisors to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Thomas E. Dewey asserted their respective candidates’ resolve to end World War II prior to the 1944 presidential election.”
Ongoing and escalating violence in Sudan – including the recent destruction of the contested town of Abyei – reinforces the importance of this united determination from the candidates. Following the Justice and Equality Movement attack on the capital May 10, reports from the ground indicate that the Sudanese government’s response has been heavy-handed and rife with human rights abuses. The reports indicate widespread detentions and disappearances, summary executions, crackdowns on Darfuri journalists and lawyers, and the looting of Darfuri homes and businesses in and around Khartoum. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir virtually promised a new round of brutal attacks in Darfur on May 20, leaving millions of civilians in the villages, cities and IDP camps in fear for their lives.
Throughout the presidential campaign, activists across the country have engaged the candidates on Darfur through initiatives like Ask the Candidates (www.askthecandidates.org) and Save Darfur’s Voter Education Project. The coalition launched its voter education project (www.savedarfur.org/candidates) last November – which features two-minute YouTube op-eds from the candidates. In Iowa and New Hampshire, hundreds of caucus and primary-goers signed full-page advertisements pressing Republican and Democratic presidential candidates to outline a clear policy to end the suffering in Darfur and to make the prevention of future atrocities a priority in their campaigns. The coalition will continue its efforts to ensure the Darfur genocide remains a central topic in the race for the White House.
“Today, we wish to make clear to the Sudanese government that on this moral issue of tremendous importance, there is no divide between us,” the statement adds. “If peace and security for the people of Sudan are not in place when one of us is inaugurated as President on January 20, 2009, we pledge that the next Administration will pursue these goals with unstinting resolve.”
http://www.savedarfur.org/newsroom/releases/clinton_mccain_obama_joint_statement_we_stand_united_on_sudan/
The good news here is that neither AP nor the NYT got their Darfur data from this press release, and nor did Helene Cooper get her quote from president of the Save Darfur Coalition, Jerry Fowler, from the press release either.
Personally, I think the running of the advert in the NYT, given the IHT is now that paper's global edition (WE ARE YET TO SEE THE ADVERT, AT LEAST IN MY EDITION OF THEIR GLOBAL EDITION SO SOME WAY TO GO FOR THE NYT'S ADVERTISING SALES TEAM TO WORK OUT THEY DO NOW HAVE A GLOBAL EDITION. HOWEVER THERE WAS A VERY NICE, AS EVER UNREAD, ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT FROM A NIGERIAN OIL STATE) is relevant and should have been mentioned in both Cooper's piece and the IHT's briefly.
So, that's high marks for the IHT/NYT and AP on fleshing out background without relying on the Coalition's press release.
A tap on the hand for not mentioning that this statement was infact an advert run in the NYT.
Poor marks, very, for the NYT advertising sale's team because I would have liked to have read that advertisement yesterday here in Europe, and no doubt SDJ could have done with the bread.
Bread (that's English slang for MONEY) from the victims of Darfur - or was the advert a gift from the NYT to the Coalition, in which case we need to be told: either the NYT is taking money from people trying to save, according to their own journalist, 2.5 million displaced people - that's a nice of the NYT - or they gave the advert to the Coalition - in which case, we also need to be told because it's highly relevant to the integrity and independence of the journalism surrounding the advert.
And what I'd like to be made clear is correct and clear sourcing of the Brieflys that appear in the IHT - wire, or NYT?
This is the type of thing I'd like to be keeping a closer eye on, but it's all about time.
Is there another IHT fan out there who wants to come and help me with this blog?
International Herald Tribune and the U.K
O.K, so Nepal is covered from New Dehli/Calcutta depending on which edition of the IHT you look at, but England from Paris?
The IHT has a serious problem regarding the U.K, because of all European countries, it is perhaps the U.K where it is most behind the news wave. Sara Lyall of the NYT does wonderfully funny and incisive pieces off the news on stories that have been very on the news in the U.K, often weeks after those events have passed. For example, the recent publication of the governments UFO files was big news in the UK two weeks ago or more. Sara Lyall covered the same story as if it was yesterday, yesterday, and the IHT put that on their front page.
Today we have Alan Cowell covering Gordon Brown's comments in yesterday's Guardian about the last oil shock, from Paris.
This endless catch up the IHT's editors play with the U.K probably goes quite unremarked by non -U.K residents of the IHT, but for anyone who lives there, or who happened to have been in the U.K a couple of weeks ago as I was and saw the UFO story in the UK press then - played in the IHT as if it were yesterday - then it's extremely annoying and endlessly behind the news.
Given that of all the countries in Europe where there is perhaps the most dissatisfaction in many circles about the quality of the UK broadsheets (see a book called Flat Earth News by Nick Davies if you want to see the crap the UK public are regularly served up) then it seems strange that not only does the IHT push for a circulation of, let's say, 100,000 there which they could easily obtain if they put their mind to it, but they can't find a good way to cover it on a daily basis.
There used to be an IHT London correspondent but I think he got cut.
So now we rely on wire copy rewrite from Paris (48 hours minimum behind the news) and Sara's pieces (anything between 2 and 3 weeks behind the news). Hardly going to win 100,000 readers.
But France, arguably a less important country, especially given the importance of the city of London and the U.K's role in Iraq and Afghanistan, is covered as if, well, a lot it's readers live there.
They don't but France is the country with the highest IHT circulation....and where most of the IHT's journalistic and editorial and copy staff live.
I remember the infamous quote from a senior IHT editor, on being posed the question 'who does he think he writes the paper for?' - was it me who posed that question? - replying: 'Well, for people like me.'
Which meant, in this and most cases: American, late 40s, early 50s, male, white, expat in France, journalist, with poor to non existent French.
Requiring, naturally, news about France.
P.S Alan Cowell in the European four star edition of today was bylined as being in Paris, for his piece on Gordon Brown on the third oil shock. By the time his piece hit the web today, no he hadn't moved to Calcutta. He just had no byline at all. He is reporting England from, well, the internet I suppose?
The IHT has a serious problem regarding the U.K, because of all European countries, it is perhaps the U.K where it is most behind the news wave. Sara Lyall of the NYT does wonderfully funny and incisive pieces off the news on stories that have been very on the news in the U.K, often weeks after those events have passed. For example, the recent publication of the governments UFO files was big news in the UK two weeks ago or more. Sara Lyall covered the same story as if it was yesterday, yesterday, and the IHT put that on their front page.
Today we have Alan Cowell covering Gordon Brown's comments in yesterday's Guardian about the last oil shock, from Paris.
This endless catch up the IHT's editors play with the U.K probably goes quite unremarked by non -U.K residents of the IHT, but for anyone who lives there, or who happened to have been in the U.K a couple of weeks ago as I was and saw the UFO story in the UK press then - played in the IHT as if it were yesterday - then it's extremely annoying and endlessly behind the news.
Given that of all the countries in Europe where there is perhaps the most dissatisfaction in many circles about the quality of the UK broadsheets (see a book called Flat Earth News by Nick Davies if you want to see the crap the UK public are regularly served up) then it seems strange that not only does the IHT push for a circulation of, let's say, 100,000 there which they could easily obtain if they put their mind to it, but they can't find a good way to cover it on a daily basis.
There used to be an IHT London correspondent but I think he got cut.
So now we rely on wire copy rewrite from Paris (48 hours minimum behind the news) and Sara's pieces (anything between 2 and 3 weeks behind the news). Hardly going to win 100,000 readers.
But France, arguably a less important country, especially given the importance of the city of London and the U.K's role in Iraq and Afghanistan, is covered as if, well, a lot it's readers live there.
They don't but France is the country with the highest IHT circulation....and where most of the IHT's journalistic and editorial and copy staff live.
I remember the infamous quote from a senior IHT editor, on being posed the question 'who does he think he writes the paper for?' - was it me who posed that question? - replying: 'Well, for people like me.'
Which meant, in this and most cases: American, late 40s, early 50s, male, white, expat in France, journalist, with poor to non existent French.
Requiring, naturally, news about France.
P.S Alan Cowell in the European four star edition of today was bylined as being in Paris, for his piece on Gordon Brown on the third oil shock. By the time his piece hit the web today, no he hadn't moved to Calcutta. He just had no byline at all. He is reporting England from, well, the internet I suppose?
International Herald Tribune and Nepal.
Somini Sengupta (of the International Herald Tribune - we can say that can't we now that the IHT is the Global Edition of the NYT; I stand to be corrected by anyone at either the IHT or the NYT) is doing a hell of a job covering unfolding events in Nepal, from New Dehli.
Or is he in fact covering them from Calcutta?
The 4 Star Atlantic edition Thursday May 29, had him in New Dehli. By the time a slightly reworked version of the same article appeared on Thursday on iht.com his byline was Calcutta.
I reached for my world atlas to see which is in fact nearer to Nepal, but as I don't have it to hand let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he re-edited his filed copy, clearly based on churnalism AP copy, en route to Katmandu. Which is where things are actually going on.
Frankly, if an IHT/NYT journalist wasn't in Katmandu on Wednesday, and clearly there wasn't, why not just run the piece with an AP byline. And why wasn't Somini in Katmandu by Wednesday given how this story has been brewing all week?
I am, I am afraid to say, able to spot more and more of this type of NYT foreign correspondent for country X posturing as a foreign correspondent for country Y.
Is honesty here, not the best policy for the foreign news desk of the IHT/NYT-whatever-the hell-it-is-we're-suppossed-to-refer-it-as?
Prize for the person who can provide me with the email and name of the AP's correspondent in Katmandu...He or she IS doing a hell of a job.
Or is he in fact covering them from Calcutta?
The 4 Star Atlantic edition Thursday May 29, had him in New Dehli. By the time a slightly reworked version of the same article appeared on Thursday on iht.com his byline was Calcutta.
I reached for my world atlas to see which is in fact nearer to Nepal, but as I don't have it to hand let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he re-edited his filed copy, clearly based on churnalism AP copy, en route to Katmandu. Which is where things are actually going on.
Frankly, if an IHT/NYT journalist wasn't in Katmandu on Wednesday, and clearly there wasn't, why not just run the piece with an AP byline. And why wasn't Somini in Katmandu by Wednesday given how this story has been brewing all week?
I am, I am afraid to say, able to spot more and more of this type of NYT foreign correspondent for country X posturing as a foreign correspondent for country Y.
Is honesty here, not the best policy for the foreign news desk of the IHT/NYT-whatever-the hell-it-is-we're-suppossed-to-refer-it-as?
Prize for the person who can provide me with the email and name of the AP's correspondent in Katmandu...He or she IS doing a hell of a job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
