AP's dangerous Iran hoax demands an accounting and explanation

The Guardian
Glenn Greenwald

An article published by Associated Press about Iran's nuclear program has sparked controversy (screen shot of AP story)

(updated below w/AP's response)

It's important to return to the story about AP's nuclear Iran "exclusive" which I wrote about yesterday. Although it was intuitively obvious that the graph trumpeted by AP as scary and incriminating of Iran's nuclear program was actually a farce, there is now new, overwhelming, very compelling scientific evidence that is the case. Whether as victim or recklessly culpable participant, AP helped perpetrate a dangerous hoax, and owes an explanation and accounting for what took place, including identifying the "officials from a country critical of Iran's atomic program" who made false claims about what this is.

To begin with, the graph AP touted as reflecting some sort of nefarious, highly threatening and complex nuclear calculation is, in fact, widely available all over the Internet in the most innocuous places. Just consider this side-by-side comparison of the AP graph on the left, with the graph on the right on this harmless site designed to teach beginner users how to use Microsoft Excel:

At the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS), Yousaf Butt and Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress on Wednesday night wrote: "Graphs such as the one published by the Associated Press can be found in nuclear science textbooks and on the Internet." Similarly, Prof. Muhammad Sahimi, a professor of chemical engineering at USC and expert in Iran's nuclear program, told Richard Silverstein of Tikun Olum that "too many graphs like this can be generated by a competent undergraduate student." So what AP presented to the world as some sort of highly complex, specialized document was, in fact, nothing more than a completely common graph easily found in all sorts of public venues.

Even worse, the calculations reflected on this graph are patently ridiculous. Butt and Dalnoki-Veress document that the graph "does nothing more than indicate either slipshod analysis or an amateurish hoax" [emphasis added]. That's because, they explain, "the diagram features quite a massive error, which is unlikely to have been made by research scientists working at a national level"; namely:

"The image released to the Associated Press shows two curves: one that plots the energy versus time, and another that plots the power output versus time, presumably from a fission device. But these two curves do not correspond: If the energy curve is correct, then the peak power should be much lower - around 300 million ( 3x108) kt per second, instead of the currently stated 17 trillion (1.7 x1013) kt per second. As is, the diagram features a nearly million-fold error."

This error is patently obvious to anyone versed in nuclear physics. Nima Shirazi yesterday spoke with Dr. M. Hossein Partovi, who teaches courses in thermodynamics and quantum mechanics at Sacramento State, and he echoed the BAS scientists:

"[Dr. Partovi], noting that the graph is plotted in microseconds, explains that 'the graph depicted in the report is a nonspecific power/energy plot that is primarily evidence of the incompetence of those who forged it: a quick look at the energy graph shows that the total energy is more than four orders of magnitude (forty thousand times) smaller than the total integrated power that it must equal!'"

Notably, the nuclear expert quoted by AP in its article, David Albright, also seemed to be trying to tell AP that the graph contained this same obvious, glaring error, yet AP - eager to believe, or at least lead others to believe, that it had some incriminating evidence - either failed or refused to understand its significance. Buried in the AP article was this passage:

"'The yield is too big,' Albright said, noting that North Korea's first tests of a nuclear weapon were only a few kilotons."

But AP never indicated that this error strongly suggested that no real nuclear scientist would have prepared it, and immediately went back in the very next paragraph to touting the document as some sort of scary evidence of Iran's threatening nuclear weapons machinations.

Journalists revolt against Obama-Romney censorship

Russia Today

Even reporters with the strongest political ties from the most mainstream US publications are so terrified by the draconian rules set up by the Obama and Romney campaigns that they are rethinking their policies on covering the presidential race.

The New York Times and LA Times editors are changing the rules for their journalists on quote approval. This news comes after months of discussions with policymakers and attempts to break the draconian censorship set by the camps of both presidential contenders. On Monday The New York Times finally broke the silence and openly admitted that the Obama campaign grants interviews "under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name."

According to the same article, Romney advisors do practically the same. The Times reveals that the presumptive Republican nominee’s camp requires that "reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article." Journalists who refuse to follow these rules lose their sources.

But this practice of censorship has been so disappointing for the journalists that now they are ready to give-up close ties with policymakers in order to have more freedom to report the facts as they see them. According to the British Guardian, both The New Your Times and LA Times are rethinking their rules on quote approval. Most likely, they will stop checking quotations with the staff of both campaigns and put more trust on their reporters. The reason is obvious.

After reporters reluctantly send in their top quotes from an interview, they are often disappointed by the edited, dull-sounding versions that they soon find in their inboxes.

“The verdict from the campaign – an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script – is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message,” the Times writes.

Aside from the campaign spokesmen, almost all strategists and aides of the Obama campaign demand quote approval. Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, is known to be “foul-mouthed,” the Times writes, but his curses are erased from quotes, so readers would not know it.

Romney’s campaign requires that all advisors, and even the candidate’s sons, are not quoted unless the staff gives approval.

This practice leaves little room for anything aside from positive statements regarding the candidates and their policies, making it an ideal campaign strategy for the presidential contenders – but a frustrating situation for reporters with a record full of unusable juicy quotes.

“It is a double-edged sword for journalists, who are getting the on-the-record quotes they have long asked for, but losing much of the spontaneity and authenticity in their interviews,” the Times writes.

Reuters and the Associated Press were opposed to the practice of quote approval from the very beginning, and others are questioning it.

New York University Journalism professor Jay Rosen thinks the only way to change the practice of quote approval is to report accurate stories without the help of quotes.

The solution, he told The Guardian, is“A press willing to say: Fine: we’ll report the story around you. We will build it from the outside in.”

The news comes at a time when Americans are increasingly more skeptical of newspapers. A recent Gallup poll shows that only 25 percent of respondents express confidence in newspapers. While journalists prefer to publish the sometimes-dirty truth, quote approval may force their writing to be nothing more than involuntary campaigning for their interviewees.

Associated Press Ron Paul Hit Piece Eviscerated by Lawrence O'Donnell