Misleading AP Story on Iran Deal Draws Fierce Critique
(COMMON DREAMS) Deirdre Fulton — However, the HuffPo reports: [N]o sooner had the report surfaced than questions began to circulate about its underlying assertions and the accuracy of its claims. Hours after publication, nonproliferation expert Jeffrey Lewis noted on Twitter that the AP deleted several paragraphs that contained the most damning allegations about the way in which inspections would occur.”
[…] The revised version of the exposé also scrubbed a paragraph that suggested IAEA inspectors would oversee Iranian scientists as they collected samples and photographs at Parchin, despite other parts of the report claiming that officials from the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency would be barred from entering the facility.
“The oldest Washington game is being played in Vienna. And that is leaking what appears to be a prejudicial and one-sided account of a confidential document to a friendly reporter, and using that to advance a particular policy agenda.”
—Jeffrey Lewis, Middlebury College’s Monterey Institute of International Studies
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), for its part, rejected the AP‘s report as “a misrepresentation.”
AP spokespeople insisted the details were cut for space—and no correction or explanation of the changes had been posted as of Thursday afternoon.
But in an interview with Vox, Lewis, the Middlebury College arms control expert cited by the HuffPo, suggested that the incident illustrated how mainstream media reporting can be used as a tool of manipulation in debates over foreign policy.
“The oldest Washington game is being played in Vienna,” Lewis said. “And that is leaking what appears to be a prejudicial and one-sided account of a confidential document to a friendly reporter, and using that to advance a particular policy agenda.”
Added Fisher: “This is certainly not the first time that someone has placed a strategic leak in order to achieve a political objective. But it is disturbing that theAP allowed itself to be used in this way, that it exaggerated the story in a way that have likely misled large numbers of people, and that, having now scrubbed many of the details, it has appended no note or correction explaining the changes. It is not a proud moment for journalism.”