A New York Times headline corrected
Photo: Twitter user @onekade
A
US-led NATO military coalition bombed a hospital run by international
humanitarian aid organization Doctors Without Borders (known
internationally as Medecins Sans Frontières, MSF) in Afghanistan,
killing at least 22 people—12 staff members and 10 patients, including
three children—and wounding 37 more.
AFP, the first network to report the story, in the early hours of
October 3,
quoted NATO saying, “US forces conducted an air strike in Kunduz city….
The strike may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby medical
facility.”
MSF promptly issued a statement (
10/3/15),
revealing that it had been “hit several times during sustained bombing
and was very badly damaged.” In an update hours later, MSF said it
“condemns in the strongest possible terms the horrific bombing of its
hospital in Kunduz, which was full of staff and patients.”
The
humanitarian organization also indicated multiple times—and in bold
capital letters—that “all parties to the conflict, including in Kabul
and Washington, were clearly informed of the precise location (GPS
Coordinates) of the MSF facilities in Kunduz, including the hospital,
guesthouse, office and an outreach stabilization unit.” MSF says the US
“repeatedly and precisely” hit the hospital.
Morever, the aid
group explained that the “bombing in Kunduz continued for more than 30
minutes after American and Afghan military officials in Kabul and
Washington were first informed by MSF that its hospital was struck.”
That is to say, the US persisted in bombing a hospital that it
explicitly knew before and during the attack was a hospital.
If
you read US corporate media coverage of this incident, however, US
culpability would likely not be evident. Instead, readers would learn
that a hospital was bombed in Afghanistan, and that people died. Who
exactly carried out the bombing would not be clear.
“Air Attacks Kill at Least 19 at Afghanistan Hospital; US Investigating,” wrote
CNN (
9/3/15).
Who carried out those attacks? Never asked is who else could possibly
have bombed the hospital. What other air forces are attacking Kunduz?
Did the bombs magically fall from the sky?
CNN provides no answer.
“Aerial
bombardments blew apart a Doctors Without Borders hospital in the
battleground Afghan city of Kunduz about the time of a US airstrike”
CNN said. The blowing apart of the hospital just appears to be a temporal coincidence.
Fox News‘ headline (
10/3/15) reads “US Officials Investigate Airstrike in Afghanistan That Killed at Least 19 at Doctors Without Borders Hospital.”
The
New York Times completely rewrote and changed the title of its report on the bombing seven times. Early on
October 3, the
Times
published an article headlined “Airstrike Hits Hospital in Afghanistan,
Killing at Least 9.” Minutes later, it changed the headline to
“Airstrike Hits Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan.” Two
hours after, it became “Afghan Hospital Hit by Airstrike, Pentagon
Says.” Then “US Investigates After Bombs Hit Afghan Hospital,” before
finalizing as “US Is Blamed After Bombs Hit Afghan Hospital.”
The over 20 versions of the article published in the
Times‘ website can be
seen at the website NewsDiffs, which monitors edits to pieces published in large new outlets. Because the
Times changed the web URL for the article when changing the headlines, there are
three separate entries on NewsDiffs.
Not one of the five
New York Times
headlines indicated that the US was responsible for the bombing. The
final title, “US Is Blamed After Bombs Hit Afghan Hospital,” which was
published in print, fails to acknowledge that it was the US who dropped
those bombs, which explains why it is blamed.
The
New York Times‘ other story (
10/4/15), “Doctors Without Borders Says It Is Leaving Kunduz After Strike on Hospital,” was also
substantially edited and rewritten numerous times. It’s likewise full of weasel words and quotes from the US government.
The
Washington Post (
10/4/15)
also changed headlines and URLs for its reporting, making it difficult
to track. It did choose a title acknowledging the US role in the attack,
but attributed it to MSF, writing, “Doctors Without Borders Says US
Airstrike Hit Hospital in Afghanistan; at Least 19 Dead.”
AP headlined an article (
10/4/15)
updating the death toll, “Doctors Without Borders Leaves Afghan City
After Airstrike.” The piece says, “A deadly airstrike destroyed its
hospital and killed 22 people, as the US and Afghan governments vowed to
get to the bottom of the carnage.” Not mentioned is that the US
government is responsible for the carnage.
Ambiguous, misleading
and even downright dishonest language abounds throughout the coverage.
US media spin the story to reflect positively on the culprit; they
report that the US is investigating the atrocity, while failing to
acknowledge that the US itself is responsible for the atrocity.
This technique is very reminiscent of
the loaded language
police departments use to downplay police brutality—language that is
often repeated verbatim by journalists who just uncritically quote
government press releases.
Not all media were as biased in the
interest of the Pentagon, however. Even some US news outlets were clear
and honest in their reporting.
Slate (
10/3/15)
was one of the few publications to report without the equivocation. “US
Airstrike on Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan Kills at
Least 19,” it said. The next day,
Slate (
10/4/15) followed up with the piece “Doctors Without Borders Says US May Have Committed War Crime.”
US: We Accidentally Bombed Hospital to Kill Taliban
After the attack, MSF released
a statement saying “All indications currently point to the bombing being carried out by international Coalition forces”—that is to say, NATO.
As
details became clearer, the media narrative began to shift from one of
obfuscation or even denial of the US bombing to one of apologism and
justification. When it was obvious that the US and NATO were responsible
for killing and wounding scores of people at a hospital, the US and
Afghan governments began to fall back on the “human shields” excuse.
A
Washington Post article (
10/4/15)
first titled “Afghan Official: Hospital in Airstrike Was ‘a Taliban
Base,'” and subsequently changed to “Afghan Response to Hospital Bombing
Is Muted, Even Sympathetic,” quotes Afghan government officials who
claimed the “hospital has a vast garden, and the Taliban were there.”
Yet MSF’s aforementioned statement makes it clear that the US
“repeatedly and precisely” bombed the hospital, not the surrounding
areas, which were “left mostly untouched.”
The aid organization also explicitly denied fighters ever being anywhere inside the hospital compound.
In
a statement titled “MSF Response to Spurious Claims That Kunduz Hospital Was ‘A Taliban Base,'” the aid organization wrote:
MSF
is disgusted by the recent statements coming from some Afghanistan
government authorities justifying the attack on its hospital in Kunduz.
These statements imply that Afghan and US forces working together
decided to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital with more
than 180 staff and patients inside because they claim that members of
the Taliban were present.
This amounts to an admission of a war
crime. This utterly contradicts the initial attempts of the US
government to minimize the attack as “collateral damage.”
There
can be no justification for this abhorrent attack on our hospital that
resulted in the deaths of MSF staff as they worked and patients as they
lay in their beds. MSF reiterates its demand for a full transparent and
independent international investigation.
MSF also
made it clear
that its hospital “is the only facility of its kind in the whole
northeastern region of Afghanistan,” and that its “doctors treat all
people according to their medical needs and do not make distinctions
based on a patient’s ethnicity, religious beliefs or political
affiliation.”
Despite MSF’s explicit denial of the allegations, US
media continued to reiterate the claims of US and Afghan government
officials.
Anonymous US military officials told
Fox News (
10/3/15)
they “regret the loss” of scores of innocent lives, but “say the
incident could have been avoided if the Taliban had not used the
hospital as a base, and the civilians there as human shields.”
But
wait, which was it? Was the bombing an accidental incident of
“collateral damage,” as the government claimed at first, and as the
media reverberated? Or was it a deliberate attack on the Taliban, who
were supposedly firing from the hospital? It can’t be both; the two
explanations contradict each other.
The fact that, when MSF’s
points—and not just those of the US and Afghan governments—are
considered, the human shields argument does not withstand close scrutiny
aside, a blatant contradiction emerges in this narrative. The answer to
this critical question remains unknown; the government, and the media
that so obediently echoes it, do not clarify.
MSF’s Kunduz hospital on fire, after being bombed by the US/NATO
Photo: MSF
Striking,
too, are the similarities to US reporting on Israeli airstrikes. In
order to justify bombing hospitals in Gaza, the US-backed Israeli
government often claims Palestinian militants use the medical facilities
as bases. Israel’s military—which
has itself used human shields many times—then says it is justified to bomb hospitals, UN shelters and other civilians areas.
US ally and NATO member Turkey borrowed Israel’s hasbara (public relations) tactic and
claimed the same about leftist Kurdish militants in order to justify its killing of Kurdish civilians.
The
Wall Street Journal (
10/4/15)
boldly steered clear of any posturing and openly justified the US
bombing of the hospital. The unsigned editorial justified the mass
killing of MSF aid workers by shifting the blame onto the Taliban
insurgents. It even brought up the specter of Hamas, writing, “Like
Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the terrorists hide near
civilians. These Taliban tactics put the medical personnel and patients
at risk.” The piece waxes poetic, and hagiographic; in a moment of
undiluted American exceptionalism on blast, the
Journal claimed that “no force in the history of warfare has done more to avoid civilian casualties than the American military.”
Remove
references to the US and the Taliban in such media coverage, replace it
with blanks, and you have a template media can use any time a US ally
bombs civilians—A Guide to Defending War Crimes Committed by US Allies:
“[Ally] did not actually
want to bomb [civilian area], but [enemy] forced it to.”
Double Standards
When
US enemies like Russia carry out airstrikes, all nuance is thrown out
the window; US media drop their standards and gleefully accuse the
enemies of war crimes. Yet when the US and NATO carry out airstrikes,
journalists suddenly have a newfound skepticism. Their language
immediately becomes ambiguous, their writing unclear; murky passages
written in the passive voice are ubiquitous.
Official
international bodies have not minced words about the bombing,
nevertheless. The UN says the US attack on the Kunduz hospital was
“inexcusable and possibly even criminal” (Australia’s
ABC,
10/4/15).
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein remarked,
“If established as deliberate in a court of law, an airstrike on a
hospital may amount to a war crime.”
Wounded MSF staff after the US/NATO bombing of its Kunduz hospital
Photo: MSF
MSF said the attack “constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law.” The aid group
called the bombing a “war crime” and “a grave violation of International Humanitarian Law.”
The
humanitarian organization is demanding an investigation “by an
independent international body,” not by the US, noting that “relying
only on an internal investigation by a party to the conflict would be
wholly insufficient.”
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald (
Intercept,
10/3/15)
pointed out the hypocrisy of the US warning about civilian casualties
of Russian airstrikes while it bombs scores of doctors and patients in
Afghanistan, a country it has militarily occupied for close to 15 years.
When
Russia denies killing civilians in its airstrikes on Syria, US media
are suddenly skeptical and thorough; yet when the US government makes
the same claims, journalists just recycle its press releases.
Is
the job of the media to just uncritically report what favored
governments say? Or is it supposed to examine the truth of official
claims? If it is supposed to be the latter, US media have abysmally
failed in their duties in reporting on the US bombing of MSF’s Kunduz
hospital.
Ben Norton is a freelance journalist and writer. His website can be found at BenNorton.com and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.
Yves Daccord
