view

One simply does not learn from this story why the group seems so intransigent about its unwillingness to relocate, disband or accept an end to American protection. The MEK's point of view on this was an essential, but missing, element in a story that so thoroughly reported on the ambassador's perspective.

Reporting on the People's Mujahedeen of Iran and their complicated plight at Camp Ashraf in Iraq has proved challenging for The New York Times. So when reporter Tim Arango had the opportunity to visit the camp with Ambassador Lawrence E. Butler, an American diplomat negotiating with the group, he took it.
Because the camp has been off-limits to journalists, Mr. Arango "embedded" with Mr. Butler's contingent and did not identify himself to the group. The result of going incognito was more problems and more complications for this American news paper.
After the story's publication, ARTHUR BRISBANE, the New York Times' foreign editor, receives a complaint from an MEK representative, detailing numerous points and capturing the essential problem of the story: that it read like a soliloquy by the ambassador.
Seeking to understand why the piece was so one-sided, ARTHUR BRISBANE picks up that "the problem traced back to Mr. Arango's decision to travel unidentified with the ambassador."
When Tim Arango submits his story draft to the foreign desk, BRISBANE informs Susan Chira, the then assistant managing editor for news, that Arango has not identified himself as a Times reporter because of restrictions on journalists' access to Camp Ashraf, and Ms. Chira tells him that he should not include any comments made by camp residents, "since they were not knowingly in the presence of a reporter."
She suggested, though, that he should solicit comment from the MEK after the fact. So Mr. Arango submitted questions by email, which elicited a lengthy response from the MEK.
According to ARTHUR BRISBANE:
The problem was not cured, however, because so little of the MEK response was incorporated in the story. One simply does not learn from this story why the group seems so intransigent about its unwillingness to relocate, disband or accept an end to American protection. The MEK's point of view on this was an essential, but missing, element in a story that so thoroughly reported on the ambassador's perspective.

In BRISBANE's point of view:
Certainly, it is true that the MEK remains a very controversial group, within the U.S. as well as Iraq and Iran. The group is still listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S., although a federal court has ordered the State Department to review the classification.
In addition, the veracity of statements from the group cannot be relied upon in some instances - for example, the MEK denied it paid General Clark and yet he acknowledged to The Times that he had been paid by the group. These issues, however, don't remove The Times's obligations to get the MEK's side.

Tim Arango, in an email, provided more background on this aspect:
I was invited by Ambassador Butler to accompany him to the camp for one of his sessions, to embed with him like we do with the military (this mission was State Department, but Amb.
Butler's regular job here is with U.S. military and we were accompanied by U.S. military). The idea was I would sit in the back and observe - not be introduced as a reporter, but not be introduced as something I wasn't (like a State Dept. employee, as the MEK claims).

Susan Chira, in an e-mail message, defended Arango's decision to go unidentified:
While it is of course unusual for a reporter not to identify himself, I thought it defensible in very restricted and rare circumstances. We do enter countries without visas or publicly proclaiming ourselves as journalists when we believe there is something newsworthy and when other attempts to gain access have failed - the most recent example was Anthony Shadid's trip to Syria.
We do attempt to gain access to places that seek to keep reporters out. Camp Ashraf has been a restricted area, despite requests to visit it. It is a point of great tension between the Iraqi and American governments, and there are clearly lives at risk. So it seemed to meet the newsworthy bar.

New York Times' foreign editor ends:
With the American presence in Iraq possibly close to ending, it would be ideal if The Times made another attempt soon to report on Camp Ashraf, this time taking pains to detail the MEK's point of view.

New Articles

Iranian film sheds new light on security services

 The Iranian film "Midday Adventures," directed by Mohammad Hossein Mahdavian, begins in Tehran on June 19, 1981, 26 months after the Islamic Revolution and nine months after the outbreak of...

Iran Parliament firmly approves anti-US bill

Iranian lawmakers on Sunday overwhelmingly voted to approve a bill aimed at countering Washington's adventurous and terrorist activities in the region.

President Meta receives US Senate fact-finding delegation

President of the Republic Ilir Meta on Saturday received and held talks with a visiting US Senate delegation led by Senator Roy Blunt on a fact-finding trip to several Western...

We Hate Mojahedin-e Khalq: SNS Respond to a Conference of the Iranian Opposition

Dr. Raz Zimmt investigates Iranian social media responses to the annual conference of Mojahedin-e Khalq, an Iranian opposition group whose support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War remains a searing...

The Trump administration wants regime change in Iran. But regime change usually doesn’t work

President Trump is no fan of Iran. As a candidate, he had promised to tear up the Iran Nuclear Agreement. Having been frustrated in his attempts to do that —...

Most viewed

Jihad 2.0: the Making of the Next Nightmare

 “Albania is being turned into the center of MKO. John Bolton was recently in Tirana, with other international supporters of MKO, and they are attacking Iran and calling for regime...

Iran terror attack: Who gains?

No terror group could have executed on operation of this sort without the help of one or more state intelligence agencies.

ISIS Attacks in Tehran Expose US-Saudi Lies About Iran

Saudi Arabia’s finger prints are on every trouble sport in the Middle East. Not only did Saudi Arabia support NATO attacks on Libya, it also provided "Arab legitimacy" for it...

The Sordid History Of State Sponsored Terrorism Against Iran

For decades, Western empires have waged a silent war against Iran, using tactics ranging from supporting known terrorist groups to deposing the country’s leaders and leveraging regional rivalries. The war...

Iran and the Holy Warrior Trap

Is the West about to make the same mistake with Iran that it made with Afghanistan when it backed the Sunni mujahedin against the Soviet invaders? The Soviets ultimately were...