On 14 November 2008, the Guardian published a commentary by Arab Media Watch chairman Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi, entitled "How US claims about Syria became media facts."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/14/syria-iraq-daily-mail

The Guardian article is an abridged version of the original, below.

Syria & the media: US claims, British facts

A propaganda war is an inherent part of any conflict, as the relevant parties strive to convince public opinion that justice is on their side. The most effective way of doing this is through the media.

At such times, when claims and counter-claims abound, it is perhaps more necessary than ever for journalists to cast a cautious, critical eye on the information they receive, so that they do not become unwitting tools in the propaganda war. In particular, it is imperative that they do not confuse or report claims as facts.

In this regard, there were several fundamental failings across the board of the British mainstream daily press in its coverage of the recent US raid into Syria. For example, Richard White in the Sun, and the Independent's Iraq correspondent Patrick Cockburn, both reported as fact that the raid killed Abu Ghadiya.

Under the headline "US kills boss," White described Abu Ghadiya as a "major smuggler of foreign fighters into Iraq…who sneaked soldiers, weapons and cash" into the country, and was "an ex-lieutenant to Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi." Cockburn described him as "an al-Qa'ida commander who dispatched fighters into Iraq."

http://tinyurl.com/5923ma

Similarly, Times diplomatic correspondent Catherine Philp reported as fact that American commandos entered Syria and fought "a brief gun battle with Abu Ghadiyah and members of his cell."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5030766.ece

Such news would seem to justify the raid in the minds of readers, because the target was worth violating the sovereignty of another country (the ends justify the means). However, Abu Ghadiya's death, and the fight against him, were US claims that were not corroborated by evidence. Despite this, such news was not identified by the aforementioned reporters as coming from American sources.

Furthermore, the Independent and Sun did not see fit to publish concise, polite letters I had written to them pointing this out. However, Daily Telegraph diplomatic editor David Blair responded promptly, politely and commendably to my email questioning why he reported Abu Ghadiya's death as fact:

"Thank you very much for your email. The point you make is entirely valid, and I have amended the web version of my story accordingly. You might have noticed that the print version is entirely different, and did not make the particular claim that you raised. What happened was that the web version was updated by someone unknown to me, who inserted that late at night, so we have corrected that mistake…Thank you for bringing this to my attention."

Reporting of the US raid included reminders of the Israeli bombing last year of what Israel claimed was a nuclear site (which Syria vehemently denied). However, despite Israel's claim never having been proved, it was reported by some as fact. Again, this may encourage readers to see the bombing as a necessary means of halting nuclear proliferation in a volatile region.

Those at fault in this regard included an anonymous article in the Daily Mail ("Israeli jets struck at a Syrian nuclear site"), and a Guardian editorial ("fighters bombed a nuclear reactor under construction in the desert").

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/syria-usa

Guardian analyst Simon Tisdall took this into account, describing the target as "a supposed nuclear facility," though in this case too, Syria's denial was absent.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/27/syria-usa

At least the Guardian published my letter pointing this out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/oct/31/1

The Mail did not. Worse still, the tabloid article wrote:

"…Syria is believed to have continued with its nuclear programme by following Iran's lead and scattering its nuclear development programme around several sites in order to make it difficult to thwart with a single strike."

The article does not identify who believes this, which would have been very useful because not only is it devoid of any evidence, but in the eight years that I have been monitoring British media coverage of the Arab world, including Syria, I do not recall ever having come across such a claim. It certainly did not appear elsewhere in British press coverage of the US raid, nor at the time of Israel's bombing.

Another claim reported as fact was that the Syrian border is "the route in for 90 per cent of Iraq's foreign jihadists." This was by Times diplomatic correspondent Catherine Philp.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5026761.ece

After I asked for her source for this statistic, she cited a report by the Combating Terrorism Centre, which analyses documents seized by US forces from the so-called Sinjar cell of al-Qaida in Iraq. However, the document states the following caveats:

"The CTC cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of these records, except to confirm they were authorized for release by the US government..."

"Readers should be aware that analyzing data captured on a battlefield is fraught with risk. Some of the personnel records were filled out incompletely or improperly, some may have been lost by al-Qa'ida's personnel in Iraq, and some may have been accidentally lost or destroyed by US forces. The Sinjar Records…are an inherently imperfect record. Readers and researchers should be wary of conclusions drawn solely on the basis of these records."

Furthermore, Philp herself pasted below her email the following from the document:

"Most of the fighters in the Sinjar Records do not explain the route they took to Iraq."

She told me she did not state her source "because the number is a very widely accepted one." However, the other mainstream news outlets that reported the statistic at the time of its release (namely the New York Times and the Independent) both stated the source. The New York Times put it like this:

"The insurgent cell raided by American troops was believed to have been smuggling up to 90 percent of all foreign fighters into Iraq, military officials say." (Richard A. Oppel, November 22, 2007)

http://tinyurl.com/6plmnz 
 
The Independent put it like this:

"The cell at Sinjar is said by the Americans to have been responsible for almost 90 per cent of foreign troops smuggled into Iraq." (Kim Sengupta, 23 November 2007)

http://tinyurl.com/6owqz9

Lastly, Philp told me that "al-Qaeda's documents indicate that 603 fighters came through Syria, a figure which accounts for 90 percent of the estimated total foreign fighters in Iraq." However, besides the aforementioned caveats, this estimate was, as she herself told me, from the US military.

There are foreign fighters in Iraq, and a proportion of them may enter via Syria (this is not to say that Syria helps them do so). However, the statistic of 90% is not a fact, it is unreliable, and the source is one of the main parties to the conflict. As such, Philps should have stated her source, as did the other journalists who reported the statistic. She did not reply to me email stating all of the above.

This article has highlighted important shortcomings in coverage of a prominent story that got a lot of media attention. As this will, sadly, not be the last flashpoint in the Middle East, one can only hope that lessons will have been learnt for next time.

If, as I suspect, these hopes will again be dashed, it is up to media consumers - readers, watchers and listeners - to take journalists to task, politely and factually. Only by making your voice heard can errors be corrected and journalists informed. Remember, they are only human, they do not necessarily have an agenda, and they are often happy to acknowledge mistakes and make amends if approached appropriately.

View an Arab Media Watch report on the British press's use of American and Syrian sources regarding the US raid:

http://tinyurl.com/6ehzj9

View AMW's background document on foreign fighters and the Syrian-Iraqi border:

http://tinyurl.com/5djq2s