LA Times allows Turkish officials and military to write article during crucial period

This article, from the October 22, 2007 Los Angeles Times, titled, “Turkey Threatens Incursion after Kurds Kill 12 Troops”.
The information that appears in the title, “12 troops killed by Kurds”, is provided by the Turkish military, the article later states. Wording the title in this manner fosters an impression that the statement is an established fact without giving the readership consideration of the source. This gives the Turkish military the biggest privilege of propagating at readers in the most read line of the article. If the Times had alluded to the fact that the information was provided by the Turkish Military within the title it would allow the readership an opportunity to decide for them selves how to feel about it.
The cause of the bias in this article is clear once one takes a look at the source of the information. All but two of the first twelve paragraphs contain either a Turkish official or military source; none of them contain a PKK or Kurdish source. There are eighteen citations in this article; thirteen of which are Turkish officials, military, or news media. Most of the remaining five citations are also governmental sources, from Iraq and the US, which means that sixteen out of eighteen citations are government sources. The heavy reliance on governmental sources frames every point in the first half of the article towards a more sympathetic view of that government's objectives. When Turkish and US officials are cited they “say”, “ask” or “remind”. But when a PKK spokesperson is cited he “claims” and even in the same paragraph the “claim” is rebottled with another Turkish official “saying” something. This subtle difference suggests more suspicion with the PKK sources than with the Turkish or US ones. Why should the readers assume a less critical standpoint with Turkish or US citations than with the ones from the PKK?
The article also offers nothing as far as a historical perspective of the conflict between the Turkish government and the Kurds. How is it possible to understand any current events without some historical gauge? Explaining that there exists large inequities between the Turkish and Kurdish populations in Turkey would help people understand the grievance that the Kurds have with the Turkish government. For example, it is illegal to speak Kurdish, to celebrate or even acknowledge Kurdish culture and customs in Turkey. Many locally elected officials in Turkey have been removed from power because of this, even when the local population is overwhelmingly Kurdish. It is even illegal to give a child a Kurdish name. Mentioning these inconvenient truths might also help people understand how serious the Turkish officials are when they say that they would “pay any price” to protect their citizens, but not even hint towards equal rights, public apology (for past abuses), or political recognition of the Kurdish Turks. This bias goes beyond merely suggestion. This shows that the Times would rather its readers bolster attitudes towards the conflict that are not just biased, but are out of pure ignorance than, offer some explanation as to why there is bitterness and resistance among the Kurds in the region.
The article also states, pointy, that, “the attacks, by the PKK, intensified pressure on the Turkish government to move against the rebels”. This comment is another example of the Times drawing conclusions for their readers. Shouldn’t the reader be left to decide if the attack puts pressure on the Turkish government? This comment is also not followed by any sort of explanation as to why the Turkish government would be pressured. And pressured by whom? The population, the business, its neighbors, its population?
Later the article states, “By threatening to invade, Turkey is hoping to force the U.S., especially, to crack down on the Kurdish rebels”. If Turkish officials made this statement then, why isn’t it quoted? By not putting a statement in quotation marks the Times is simply adopting what officials say as if it is undisputable fact. If the officials did not state this, then either the Times writers have special powers that allow them to know what foreign government officials are hoping, or they are again drawing conclusions for their readers. Assuming the latter, since the statement is not in quotes and I doubt the Times writers have special powers, why would it be important for the writers to convey what they think the Turkish government’s hopes are? Is this news? Or are the Times writers simply not letting their readers connect the dots on their own?
Finally the most glaring aspect of this article is its failure to warn the readers of any of the humanitarian consequences of a military invasion. When articles mostly consist of governmental citations, especially from the government that is planning the invasion, the information is most likely not going to indicate the horror and misery of its policies. This view, I believe, is the most vital because without knowing the consequences of an action how can you accurately asses it. A story like this is crucial because Turkey is a long time ally of The United States and the public attitudes of either nation can have a great impact on whether Turkey invades, and causes injury, death, and destruction for tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of people.

An Advertisement for Privatization Passes for News at LA Times

This article, titled, "An Experiment in Government", by Jenny Jarvie, from The Los Angeles Times August 19, 2007, is about how the outskirts of Atlanta Ga., in Fulton County, have been incorporating into their own cities the last two years. Most of the article is devoted to the privatization of city services instead of having traditional public institutions. For example, the article cites that county commissioners are considering replacing the Sheriff’s Department with a privately contracted jailer.
Throughout the article there is an overwhelming bias as the article only describes the moves toward incorporation as positive, for example, “For 30 years, residents of Sandy Springs (incorporated in 2005) fought a Democratic-controlled Legislature for city hood, with legislators refusing to change a law that made it difficult for new cities to be formed”, and describing the incorporation of an affluent northern community as “wining its independence in 2005”. The article also only describes the county government in negative terms, for instance, “Many who support the city hood and privatization movement say it cannot be less dysfunctional than Fulton County government has been”, but Jarvie does not indicate what “many” represents. As a matter of fact, the only quotations given from the “960,000” Fulton County residents are The Sandy Springs mayor, Eva Galambos and Interim Manager, Oliver Porter. The article begins by citing Sandy Springs’ mayor, Eva Galambos, saying that there are “almost three times as many police officers now than two years ago.”, and starts the Porter quotation with “Some are scathing”.
To add to the bias the only criticisms offered are “Many say it is too early to determine the success of the movement away from county government”, and “Some fear that private companies would be too stringent in enforcing codes and ordinances”. The article never mentions any class perspectives of privatizing the local services, For instance, privatization usually entails replacing public workers with private (sometimes temporary) workers. Which means lower wages, less benefits, the exemption of labor rights (temporary employment), less chance of equal opportunity, and less job security. This is one method of transferring public revenue from the poor and working class to the upper classes. Also privatization, despite all the talk about it being more efficient, is usually more expensive, since special interests usually out-weight picketing the most competitive bid.
The article also doesn’t point out that privatization of public services can take a voice away from the average citizen. In some instances private enterprise is exempt from observing individual rights and government oversights. A private company may not have to disclose information to the public about local issues. Private companies also have to consistently strive for larger profits this means even if expenditures aren’t cut; residents might see more limited services. For example if too few residents use public transportation at certain hours a private company might cut the service in order to maintain or boost profits. The outcome is that the public are treated more like consumers than citizens.
An example of privatization vs. local government run services is the energy deregulation in California signed by Former Governor Pete Wilson in 1996, but did not materialize until 2000. In 2000 California started to see rolling black outs, and sky rocketing energy rates, except for The City of Los Angeles which has kept its utilities public. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission found that the crisis was created by the private energy companies for market manipulation. By the end of the “crisis” the energy companies declared bankruptcy and lay off hundreds of workers.
Jarvie does briefly mention another issue. That separating more affluent areas into independent cities redistributes tax revenue from poorer areas to more affluent areas: increasing tax burden on the poor and working class while limiting public benefits and services to them. Another name for this redistribution that the article doesn’t utter is Urban Sprawl. Examples of it can be seen all over the United States and its affects on the majority the population have been devastating, but you can’t find that side of the story in The Los Angeles Times.
To sum privatization up you have poor and working class residents possibly paying higher local taxes for substandard services provided by other poor or working class residents with lower income jobs all so that private firms can make a profit at the public’s expense.

Israel launches a terror attack, deemed by the Los Angeles Times as an airstrike

There was an article in today’s, October 28, 2005 Los Angeles Times about an Israeli missile strike on a civilians in the Gaza Strip.
The first paragraph reads as follows:
“Israeli aircraft fired missiles Thursday night at a car carrying members of the Palestinian militant organization Islamic Jihad in the northern Gaza Strip, Killing all four men inside the vehicle and three civilian bystanders”. But four paragraphs later the article reads that one of the occupants of the car, killed by the missile attack, was identified by Palestinian sources and the Israeli army as Shadi Mohanna, who the Israeli army claimed was, “responsible for several murderous attacks”. The article then goes into great detail about a suicide bombing the previous day. Why would a story about a missile attack go into such detail about a completely different event without giving details about the original event. It seems as though the Los Angeles Times is going to great lengths to justify a missile strike on a civilian target by the Israeli army. Articles like these make the Los Angeles Times a propaganda tool for the Israeli army.

According to the article Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that military actions in response to the Hadera bombing, (previous day’s suicide bombing) would be “broad and unstinting, until they halt terrorism”. What irony, when you can justify the use of terrorism to “halt terrorism”. And is this the ‘free’ Gaza strip that the media was going on about two months ago. It seems that the state of Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip so that they could complain about the lack of security measures taken on by the Palestinian authority, and thus, justify more military action against the civilian population, and yet again pull the strings of tyranny even tighter on the Palestinian population. Not to mention putting the rest of the population in the region in great danger from the backlash of such military operations.

LA Times paints demonstrators in Argentina as anti-US

Front page of the Los Angeles Times for Saturday, November 5, 2005 reads, “US a target at summit in Argentina” referring to the protesters this week in Argentina. It couldn’t be the “Free Trade Agreements” for Latin America, which is the agenda for the summit, that has the citizens of Argentina out in the street in protest. You wouldn't see, "Argentineans, a target of ‘free trade' agreements", for a headline, because that kind of reporting would be blasphemous for such cohorts of corporate and state power as the LA Times. As the first paragraph reads, “A hemispheric summit to promote job creation and spread democracy throughout the Americas opened here Friday amid raucous anti-U.S. demonstrations…”. But as the article continues on page 8 with a hint of criticism towards free trade agreement and starts to paint a different picture of the protestors. It reads, “...many in Argentina, Brazil and elsewhere fear market liberalization could lead to the plundering of their natural resources and depletion of national assets by multinational corporations. That, they argue, would result in increased economic woes in a region where poverty is already endemic”. There’s also a quote from a protester acknowledging that “We are a statement…against hunger and poverty”. Not quite the “Anti-U.S. demonstrations” against a “summit to promote job creation and the spread of democracy” that were described on the front page.

A few paragraphs down the front page, the article mentions the presence of the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the summit and reads, “Chavez… has repeatedly accused Washington of seeking to overthrow him and invade his oil-rich nation”. The article doesn’t even acknowledge that there was a coup against Chavez on April 12, 2002, which, didn’t last for more than 48 hours because it drew some much unrest from the population. After the coup, then U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said "We do hope that Chavez recognizes that the whole world is watching and that he takes advantage of this opportunity to right his own ship, which has been moving, frankly, in the wrong direction for quite a long time,". No one in the Bush Administration ever expressed the idea that the coup was a violent and disruptive act against democracy. The article also fails to mention that Chavez isn’t the only one “accusing Washington of seeking to overthrow him”. Many observers including U.S. ex-diplomats have been cited that they believe the Bush Administration and the C.I.A. was involved with the coup and some have asserted that Venezuela may still be in danger. The article also doesn’t bring up the fact that the U.S. was quick to recognize the new Haitian Government in 2004 after the brutal overthrow of democratically elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Acknowledging these facts might give credit to the claims of a Washington adversary, who, spoke to protestors at the summit about U.S. imperial interests, and take the focus off the U.S. as a target of “anti-U.S. demonstrators”.