Patterico has a must-read post today on how the Los Angeles Times reports on Iraq. Earlier this month, the LAT reported that 30 Iraqi civilians died from an airstrike conducted by US forces in Ramadi. However, the military denied that any airstrike had taken place at all, and instead the Coalition had killed a number of terrorists in the act of planting IEDs. In fact, it appears that the Times relied on Islamist propaganda to create its report -- calling into question their entire coverage in Iraq.

Patterico writes:

* The soldier claimed that there were no airstrikes in Ramadi that day, while the L.A. Times stringer claimed there had been an airstrike. When I checked into it, the weight of the evidence indcated that the soldier was right and the L.A. Times was wrong.

The military flatly denies that there was an airstrike — a denial that the L.A. Times has failed to report to this day. Several other media reports state that civilians died from small-arms fire and tank fire, and not an airstrike.

* The soldier claimed that only insurgents were killed in the fighting, while the L.A. Times claimed that women and children were killed. Once again, the soldier’s claims appeared to be true, and the L.A. Times claim false.

Other than the L.A. Times report, there is no evidence that women or children were killed in the attack. The available evidence, including other media reports and information through a contact at a Ramadi hospital, indicates that the bodies brought into a Ramadi hospital were all adult males. This fact is suggestive of the possibility that those killed were insurgents, not innocent civilians.

* The soldier claimed: “No houses were destroyed and only one courtyard wall was damaged”; by contrast, the L.A. Times stringer claimed that “at least 15 homes were pulverized by aerial bombardment.” There are no media reports with reliable firsthand accounts of pulverized homes.

Indeed, I found only one story (published by Reuters) in which a journalist claims to have been on the scene to report observations of the damage firsthand, and he said: “One small structure was burnt out in that street.” Once again, the objective evidence seemed to favor the claims of the soldier.

There's far more to this story. Make sure you read the entire post. Patterico has once again done brilliant work in his coverage of bias at the Los Angeles Times.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference LA Times: Newspaper Or Propaganda Repeater?:

» Enemy Propaganda from our Media from Wake up America
Once again, there are dozens of military blogs on the web, words from our soldiers, which I have showed here many times... listen to your troops, hear them and understand that out of the two, the media or the troops, the troops are the only ones that... [Read More]

Tracked on November 24, 2006 1:25 PM

» L.A. Times reprinting enemy propaganda? from Bill's Bites
LA Times: Newspaper Or Propaganda Repeater?Ed Morrissey Patterico has a must-read post today on how the Los Angeles Times reports on Iraq. Earlier this month, the LAT reported that 30 Iraqi civilians died from an airstrike conducted by US forces [Read More]

Tracked on November 24, 2006 1:53 PM

» Counterinsurgency meets Tradition from Mensa Barbie Welcomes You
Counterinsurgence demands not only revisions of military tactics...A very revealing post by Captain Ed: LA Times: Newspaper... [Read More]

Tracked on November 24, 2006 3:40 PM

» Los Angeles Times Watch: Big Media Journalists Often Rely on Sources That Are Unreliable from FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
Patterico (Via Hugh Hewitt): Is the L.A. Times Repeating Enemy Propaganda? Or Is There Another Reason The Paper Is Getting Basic Facts Wrong and Failing to Report the Military’s Side? Conclusion: In doing so, I found I learned something important ab... [Read More]

Tracked on November 24, 2006 8:35 PM