Armenian genocide dispute erupts at LAT

[Joseph]

Commentary
L.A. Times Managing Editor Resigns After
Killing Article on Armenian Genocide

By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
Douglas Frantz, Managing Editor of the Los Angeles Times, resigned last week
following his controversial decision in April to block the publication of a
major article on the Armenian Genocide, written by reporter Mark Arax.
After killing the story, Frantz sent an e-mail to Arax wrongly accusing him
and five other Times reporters (four of whom are Armenians) of signing a
"petition" to their editors on the Armenian Genocide. Frantz told Arax: "You have a
conflict of interest that precludes you from writing about the Armenian
Genocide." Frantz also alleged that Arax and Bob Ourlian (a Times editor) had gone
around the newspaper's established system for assigning and editing articles.
When this columnist first learned about the controversy back in mid-April, he
contacted David Hiller, Publisher of The Times, who promised to look into the
matter. Then, unexpectedly, Douglas Frantz called this writer and, talking in
an abrasive manner, provided no rational explanation for his action.
A week later, Jim O'Shea, Editor of The Times, met with this writer along
with Zanku Armenian and Janet Janjigian to discuss the on-going controversy. The
three Armenian community members told O'Shea that Frantz's accusations were
false, discriminatory and illegal and that Arax and his fellow reporters had not
signed a "petition." Instead, the six reporters had sent an internal memo to
their editors in response to The Times' repeated mischaracterization of the
Armenian Genocide in 2005, reminding them that the newspaper was not complying
with its own written policy on the Genocide. This policy mandated that The
Times not equivocate whenever it referred to the Armenian Genocide. The editors at
that time did not find anything wrong with the memo. On the contrary, they
thanked the reporters for their very proper reminder which was in keeping with
The Times' own Code of Ethics. It required that staff members bring
inaccuracies to the editors' attention.
During the meeting, the three community members also told O'Shea that Frantz
had falsely accused Arax and Ourlian of circumventing proper editorial
channels in writing and editing the article on the Armenian Genocide. The newspaper's
executives in the chain of command were fully aware of Arax's article and had
slated it for publication on page one.
Furthermore, the Armenian participants brought to O'Shea's attention Frantz's
long-standing ties to Turkey. He was stationed in Istanbul for several years,
first as bureau chief for The New York Times and then as investigative
reporter for the Los Angeles Times. He had developed close contacts with various
Turkish officials, including the Turkish Consul General in Los Angeles who
boasted in a taped interview with Arax about his special relationship with Frantz.
O'Shea was also told that Frantz was going to Istanbul in early May to moderate
a panel that included a notorious genocide denialist. The Armenian group told
O'Shea that it was Frantz not Arax who had a biased view on the Armenian
Genocide. While promising to investigate these issues, O'Shea went along with
Frantz and approved publication of a substitute article on the Armenian Genocide
written by another reporter, thus killing Arax's original story.
Seeing that there was no resolution in sight, this writer decided to make
public the censorship of Arax's article and called for Frantz's dismissal. That
column was posted on scores of websites, generating great public interest.
Several newspapers and radio stations interviewed this columnist, further
publicizing the controversy. The reaction was fast and furious. Thousands of e-mails
were sent to The Times by Armenian and non-Armenian individuals and
organizations, including Jewish World Watch, protesting Frantz's discriminatory action
against Arax. The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) subsequently
issued a nationwide Action Alert urging the Armenian community to demand Frantz's
resignation. The Western Diocese of the Armenian Church also supported this
initiative by posting on its website ANCA's Action Alert along with this
writer's column. It is noteworthy that several Turkish writers rushed to Frantz's
defense by urging fellow Turks to write to The Times in support of Frantz's
censorship of the article on the Armenian Genocide. The Azeri Press Agency (APA),
not to be left behind, claimed that Frantz told its U.S. Bureau that "he is
grateful to all Azerbaijanis supporting him."
David Hiller, Publisher of The Times, then held two follow-up meetings with a
select group of Armenian community members. The first meeting included Editor
O'Shea, Zanku Armenian of ANCA; Prof. Hrair Dekmejian, Director of USC
Institute of Armenian Studies; Maria Mehranian, Chairwoman of Armenia Fund, Western
U.S.; Harut Sassounian, Publisher of The California Courier; and Larry Zarian,
former Mayor of Glendale. The second meeting was with Prof. Dekmejian, Raffi
Hamparian of ANCA, Sassounian and Zarian). There were also more than a dozen
phone conversations on this issue between Hiller, Sassounian and Zarian.
Hiller told the Armenians during the second meeting that he had come to the
conclusion that Mark Arax had done nothing wrong. In a written statement he
issued on June 18, Hiller said that all of Arax's actions were "journalistically
appropriate," including "his professional work in reporting on the Armenian
genocide, and in communicating with the paper to ensure our adherence to
established policy in referring to the genocide." Hiller went on to say that "The
Times does not tolerate any discrimination in the reporting or editing of the
news based on ethnic heritage or other basis."
Furthermore, in a earlier e-mail sent to his newspaper's staff and readers,
Hiller said: "I am very proud of the reporting that The Times does on the
Armenian Genocide, and also the positions we have taken on our editorial pages. I
am also proud and grateful for the welcome and support my new friends in the
Southern California Armenian communities have shown me since my arrival here six
months ago. I look forward to continuing that fine relationship and the
strong and open communications on which it is based."
Hiller also told the Armenian community members during the second meeting
that the newspaper had signed a settlement agreement with Arax who has decided to
retire and devote his time to writing books and taking an active role in
Armenian affairs. The Fresno Bee quoted Arax's attorney, Warren Paboojian, as
saying that Arax and The Times had reached an undisclosed financial settlement "to
forestall a lawsuit alleging defamation and discrimination." Arax told the
Bee that he could not comment on the terms because of a "confidentiality
agreement."
In a statement issued to The California Courier this week, Arax said: "I was
truly humbled by the support from the Armenian community. It came from all
quarters and across political and organizational divides, though I would be
remiss if I didn't single out the special roles of Harut Sassounian, the ANC and
the Western Diocese. This support turned one journalist's fight against
censorship into a community battle, and the pressure brought to bear on the Los
Angeles Times was instrumental in helping us reach a fair settlement. Despite my
voluntary departure, the Armenian community should know that I am not leaving the
profession of journalism. Indeed, now that I am unburdened of my newspaper
work, I plan on writing even more books and national magazine stories on topics
dear to me, including genocide denial. If all goes well, I plan on visiting
Armenia in the near future and tracing the river valley that gave our family its
name."
Throughout this ordeal, the pressure was mounting on Frantz both from the
outside and apparently from within The Times organization. The well-connected
"laobserved.com" website reported that the word going around Times staffers was
that "Editor Jim O'Shea ordered Frantz to make a public apology and that it
wasn't going down well with Frantz." It is understandable why top executives of
The Times did not want to make any embarrassing public comments on Frantz's
blunder. Indeed, it was clear that by absolving Arax from any wrongdoing, The
Times management was implying that Frantz had censored Arax's article for reasons
that had nothing to do with journalism.
Finally, the combination of escalating criticism and a job opportunity -- not
surprisingly -- in Istanbul, led to Frantz's resignation last week after less
than two years at his current position. It is noteworthy that just eight
months ago, when several of his colleagues were leaving the newspaper as a result
of management changes, Frantz was determined to stay and told his colleagues:
"I am not quitting and I am asking all of you not to quit."
Curiously, Frantz did not provide a reason for his resignation. However,
several newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, made references to the
Armenian controversy that preceded his departure. L.A. Times reporter Roger Vincent
wrote: "Frantz recently was embroiled in an emotionally charged personnel
issue. A group of Armenian Americans called for Frantz's ouster after he blocked
the publication of an article on the Armenian genocide of the early 20th
century." The Chicago Tribune reported that Frantz first approached The Times'
Editor O'Shea a month ago offering to resign, saying that "being a managing editor
was 'not a good fit.'"
In a press release, the ANCA characterized Frantz's resignation as "an
appropriate answer to his unprofessional behavior and anti-Armenian posture in the
newsroom. The Los Angeles Times is a fine newspaper and deserves better than to
have a genocide denier as a member of its senior staff. The fact that Frantz
is returning to Istanbul tells the full story of where he stands."
Armenians will now have to monitor Frantz's reportage from Istanbul in the
Wall Street Journal. The Armenian community's concern is justified in view of
the fact that for many years the Wall Street Journal has been more pro-Turkish
than even the Turkish Daily News! Interestingly, Wall Street Journal's Managing
Editor Marcus Brauchli was quoted by the L.A. Times as saying that he offered
Frantz the position of Middle East and Africa bureau chief in Istanbul,
"after [the Journal's] top executives reviewed his handling of the Armenian story."
Given the Turkophile perspective of the Journal's editors, they may have
considered Frantz's censorship of an article on the Armenian Genocide an asset
rather than a liability! Notably, Frantz's new position at the Wall Street
Journal is several levels below the rank he held at the L.A. Times, going from
Managing Editor to working for a Deputy Managing Editor.
During the past two months, Frantz's unwarranted actions created considerable
tension between the Los Angeles Times and over half million Armenian American
residents of Southern California. With his departure, the Armenian community
can now look forward to the renewal of the constructive relationship that had
developed in recent months with Publisher Hiller and other senior executives
of one of America's most prominent newspapers.

[Gavur]

Bravo!
To all of us, our community leaders,especially Harry Sasoonian.

[Joseph]

http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2788619.ece

Robert Fisk: No wonder the bloggers are winning
These gutless papers explain why more people are Googling than turning pages

Published: 21 July 2007
I despise the internet. It's irresponsible and, often, a net of hate. And I don't have time for Blogopops. But here's a tale of two gutless newspapers which explains why more and more people are Googling rather than turning pages.

First the Los Angeles Times. Last year, reporter Mark Arax was assigned a routine story on the 1915 genocide of one and a half million Armenians by the Ottoman Turkish authorities. Arax's report focused on divisions within the local Jewish community over whether to call the genocide a genocide.

It's an old argument. The Turks insist - against all the facts and documents and eyewitness accounts, and against history - that the Armenians were victims of a civil war. The Israeli government and its new, Nobel prize-winning president, Shimon Peres - anxious to keep cosy relations with modern Turkey - have preferred to adopt Istanbul's mendacious version of events. However, many Jews, both inside and outside Israel, have bravely insisted that they do constitute a genocide, indeed the very precursor to the later Nazi Holocaust of six million Jews.

But Arax's genocide report was killed on the orders of managing editor Douglas Frantz because the reporter had a "position on the issue" and "a conflict of interest".

Readers will already have guessed that Arax is an Armenian-American. His sin, it seems, was that way back in 2005, he and five other writers wrote a formal memo to LA Times editors reminding them that the paper's style rules meant that the Armenian genocide was to be called just that - not "alleged genocide". Frantz, however, described the old memo as a "petition" and apparently accused Arax of landing the assignment by dealing with a Washington editor who was also an Armenian.

The story was reassigned to Washington reporter Rich Simon, who concentrated on Turkey's attempt to block Congress from recognising the Armenian slaughter -- and whose story ran under the headline "Genocide Resolution Still Far From Certain".

LA Times executives then went all coy, declining interviews, although Frantz admitted in a blog (of course) that he had "put a hold" on Arax's story because of concerns that the reporter "had expressed personal views about the topic in a public (sic) manner...". Ho ho.

Truth can be dangerous for the LA Times. Even more so, it seems, when the managing editor himself - Frantz, no less - once worked for The New York Times, where he referred to the Armenian massacres as, yes, an "alleged" genocide. Frantz, it turns out, joined the LA Times as its Istanbul correspondent.

Well, Arax has since left the LA Times after a settlement which forestalled a lawsuit against the paper for defamation and discrimination. His employers heaped praise upon his work while Frantz has just left the paper to become Middle East correspondent of the Wall Street Journal based in - of course, you guessed it - Istanbul.

But now let's go north of the border, to the Toronto Globe and Mail, which assigned columnist Jan Wong to investigate a college murder in Montreal last September. Wong is not a greatly loved reporter. A third-generation Canadian, she moved to China during Mao's "cultural revolution" and, in her own words, "snitched on class enemies and did my best to be a good little Maoist."

She later wrote a "Lunch With" series for the Globe in which she acted all sympathetic to interviewee guests to catch them out. "When they relax, that's when their guard is down," she told a college newspaper. "It's a trick, but it's legit." Yuk!

Wong's take on the Montreal Dawson College shooting, however, was more serious. She compared the killer to a half-Algerian Muslim who murdered 14 women in another Montreal college shooting in 1989 and to a Russian immigrant who killed four university colleagues in Montreal in 1992. "In all three cases," she wrote, "the perpetrator was not 'pure laine', the argot for a 'pure' francophone. Elsewhere, to talk of racial purity is repugnant. Not in Quebec."

Painfully true, I'm afraid. Parisians, who speak real French, would never use such an expression - pure laine translates literally as "pure wool" but means "authentic" - but some Montrealers do. Wong, however, had touched a red hot electric wire in "multicultural" Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper complained. "Grossly irresponsible," said the man who enthusiastically continued the policy of sending Canadian troops on their suicidal mission to Afghanistan.

The French-Canadian newspaper Le Devoir - can you imagine a British paper selling a single copy if it called itself "Duty"? - published a cartoon of Wong with exaggerated Chinese slanted eyes. Definitely not pure laine for Le Devoir. The hate mail was even more to the point. Some contained excrement.

But then the Globe and Mail ran for cover. Its editor-in-chief, Edward Greenspon, wrote a cowardly column in which he claimed that the offending paragraphs "should have been removed" from her story. "We regret that we allowed these words to get into a reported (sic) article," he sniffled. There had been a breakdown in what he hilariously called "the editorial quality control process".

Now I happen to know a bit about the Globe's "quality control process". Some time ago, I discovered that the paper had reprinted an article of mine from The Independent about the Armenian genocide. But they had tampered with it, altering my word "genocide" to read "tragedy".

The Independent's subscribers promise to make no changes to our reports. But when our syndication folk contacted the Globe, they discovered that the Canadian paper had simply stolen the article. They were made to pay a penalty fee. But as for the censorship of the word "genocide", a female executive explained to The Independent that nothing could be done because the editor responsible had "since left the Globe and Mail".

It's the same old story, isn't it? Censor then whinge, then cut and run. No wonder the bloggers are winning.

[Joseph]

Gee, thanks LA Times. Thank you for spreading the Fascist message, not just as it relates to Armenians but Kurds, EU, etc.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-turkey2apr02,0,1996113.story?page=1

Genocide, diplomacy and terrorism

A partial transcript the Assembly of Turkish American Associations’ meeting with The Times editorial board.
April 2, 2008

Leaders of an umbrella group for Turkish-American groups stopped by The Times recently to discuss the debate over the Armenian genocide, Turkey's membership in the European Union and quashing Kurdish separatism in northern Iraq. Below are highlights from that meeting.

Armenian genocide

Tim Cavanaugh: The L.A. Times is on record as supporting the term genocide to describe whatever it is that happened in the early part of the 20th century. We'd be interested in hearing your views on that.

Nurten Ural, president, Assembly of Turkish American Associations: Sure. Well, as far as the events of 1915, of course we do not like to call it a genocide because it was not a genocide. We do agree that many Armenians died at that time; we feel very bad about that, but many if not more Turks and Muslims died at the time. It was a time of war, and in war, people die. But we really think Turkey's position on this is — Turkey has opened its archives, and they say, let's get all the historians, open up all the archives, let them dive into the archives, research what really happened, and everybody will accept whatever happened.

What we don't like is having the politicians make history or set history when they're not that knowledgeable about history. If the historian part doesn't work, let's take it to court — have the international court get historians or whatever to see what happened in those days. As Turkish Americans, we're very strong on this, that, you know, as far as the fact, let's find out what the real facts are instead of what we want them to be or what others want them to be …

Cavanaugh: What kind of discussions do you have with Armenian groups, Armenian-American groups in particular?

Ural: Well, we try to have discussions … We invite them always to debates; in fact, some of my best friends are Armenians. Secretly, they come to us; openly, publicly, they refuse to come to us … To us, we have the same culture as the Armenians: We have the same music, we have the same foods — we should get along … We need to get this out into the open, we need to get past it, we need to go on.

The thing that personally … upsets me about this whole thing is teaching children hatred. In this time in the world, we don't need that. We need to teach them peace and to get along with each other.

Cavanaugh: They can come in and make their own case … but just as a question: What you hear from Armenian groups is, you know, when you say debate, the response to that is, "Well, we don't ask Jewish groups to come in and debate German groups about whether the Holocaust happened. And why should we be subject to that … sort of self justification?"

Ural: It has been proven that the Holocaust happened; it has not been proven that the genocide has happened …

Ahmet Atahan, president , Association of Turkish Americans of Southern California: If you're talking in the streets [to] an Anatolian-born Armenian or American-born Armenian, their views reflect, I think, a little bit different than the political side of the whole issue. So when you say Armenians, yes, we do talk with Armenians. Yes, we do work with them, we live with them, we entertain ourselves with them. But when it comes to the political angle, some sectors [are] driving the whole issue. It's different than the common Armenian that's really thinking in a different wavelength …

Cavanaugh: We had the Armenian prime minister in a few months back, and he suggested … we're talking about Armenian Americans, right? Because … the prime minister's discussed the idea that this is something that gets people exercised more in the diaspora than it does in Armenia itself …

Allison Block, advocacy director, ATAA: There's no question about that. In fact, there are more [Armenians] living outside of Armenia than in Armenia proper. In fact, Armenia proper is suffering incredibly because of this. As you are aware, the border between Turkey and Armenia is closed right now. It was closed for obviously a different issue, but such political tension has caused Turkey to keep the border shut … Should this issue be brought to Congress and decided upon in Congress, that indeed the United States recognizes this is genocide, I think you'll find that the border will stay shut and Armenia itself as a country will suffer even more. Turkish businesspeople and Armenian businesspeople are already trying to find ways to cooperate because … there is no question that this is a diaspora issue …

Cavanaugh: How does this impact you guys as Turkish Americans? These are international issues that are for other people to settle, so where do you come into this?

Ural: Personally, my niece came from school crying — well, my brother had to go get her from school — when an eight-year-old girl tells my niece, "Your grandfather killed by grandfather," and my niece has no idea what they're talking about … That is what we don't like to see, when our children [are] attacked in school for no reason whatsoever, for a reason that they're not even aware of … That should not be encourage by parents; that should not be taught by parents …

Cavanaugh: Is this formed to some degree by the fact that the United States at the time was among the few patrons the Armenians had? … Is that something that sort of structurally works against you guys, that there is this long history of sympathy?

Block: I wouldn't necessarily say that's a factor.

Atahan: There's a couple details there … Don't label the whole thing 1915 events, because when you look at history, you have to look at … a much wider time period to see the real reasons and kind of why things happened … because there are events after 1915 that Armenians don't talk about that [are] actually against them …

You cannot just look at a narrow timeframe. When you look at … the end of the 18th century, you'll also see that there are a lot of religious missions and activities. So when you look at the American point of view, there [are] some religious-influenced events that show sympathy …

Ural: Also, events such as the Armenians taking and being allies with the Russians fighting against the Turks. Like I said, it's a time of war; that's why many of them died, just as well as Turks did. There's a lot of complications … It's not just a thing saying, you know, Turks killed Armenians and it's a genocide.

Page 2 of 2 << back 1 2

Atahan: Forget old times, come to today. When you look at Iraq today, there are a number of deaths, a number of people dislocated and everything. When you look at it, so does that mean, a few years down the road people can easily say, "Americans caused the big loss in Iraq, so that was a genocide"? Or, you look at it in a more logical way … and you look at the reasons and say … "This is a war time, this is what happened …" But if you put the emotions on the table, and don't look at the realistic end of it, of course the picture's going to be totally different …

Cavanaugh: Why would [Armenian Americans] push the issue?

Ural: Land. Money.

Atahan: Not just land … but also, if you're able to get an 18-year-old kid today have certain feelings because he's an Armenian. So you lose that hatred as a tool to keep an identity, you use it for other purposes, and you need to keep on going for financial gain [and] for other purposes. But is that the reality? Who knows — that's a different issue. With Turks, it was overcome. We had losses; bury it, get over it …

I had my relatives die. My grandparents and family, the whole village vanished. But I don't feel hatred for anybody because of it. It was a war time, it happened, period. My life is different …