Response to the New York Times Editorial of- Aug. 23, 2014
Posted on September 3rd, 2014

 Neville Ladduwahetty

The NYT makes stringent requirements of responders to their Editorials, such as not more than 150 words, full address and contact ##s, no release to any other publication, etc.etc.The following response was sent on Aug 26, 2014 complying with all listed responses. But it was not published. I feel free of the obligations to the NYT and so release it to the LankaWeb.
———-
August 26, 2014

To: The Editorial Board,
The New York Times

Ref: New York Times Editorial August 23, 2014: “Sri Lanka’s Intransigence”.

Sri Lanka is being cited by you in the company of North Korea and
Syria because of non-cooperation in the United Nation’s investigation.
Israel also did not cooperate with the UN’s Goldstone investigation.
Why is Israel not included in this list?

The estimate of 40,000 Tamils dead is not by the UN.  It is by a Panel
of Experts appointed by the UN Secretary General, which also quotes
the UN Country Team document that was NEVER RELEASED PUBLICLY, that
“estimated a total figure of 7,721 killed and 18,479 injured from
August 2008 up to 13 May 2009″ (para 134 of PoE Report).

Exaggerating civilian deaths to 40,000 is part of a political agenda.
Such exaggerations are not unusual with political agendas.

The NY Times priority is a call for prosecution.  Sri Lanka’s was
restoration and rehabilitation.

 Sincerely,

 Neville Ladduwahetty

————————-

​Maryland, USA​

2 Responses to “Response to the New York Times Editorial of- Aug. 23, 2014”

  1. Christie Says:

    Here are two incidents about the freedom of expression and free press.
    In 1983 August a friend of mine wanted to place an in-memorium classified in a British newspaper for the unarmed officers who were gunned down by the members of the Indian terrorist arm. He first rang Guardian who wanted death certificates of the soldiers, the relationship to them etc. Then he rang few other newspapers who refused asking for this and that and finally he ended up with the Times of London who published the classified. Asked why the other papers refused the Times of London cadet provided some of the reasons why they have refused.
    There are hardly any Sinhalese compared to Indians in the readership and customer base. There are lot of Indian business accounts (advertising) with the media.
    Most of the small shops who sell newspapers are Indians
    The same applies to the media in the island nation.
    A friend of mine wanted to place a paid advertisement in the Ceylon Daily News during the Navanatham Pillayan’s (UNHCR) during her last visit last year.
    The advertisement said “Hon. UNHCR Ms. Navanatham Pillayan is an Indian colonial parasite and she should not deal with the issues affecting the subjects of the Indian Empire”
    They refused to accept the advertisement. Then he went to the Island newspaper. They accepted it and the payment. When he got home there was a message from the Island newspaper asking my friend to come and get a refund of the money as they are not going to publish the advertisement.

    These are true events.

  2. NAK Says:

    It is good of Mr.Ladduwahetti to reply to the NYT But expecting them to publish it is bit unrealistic I guess. The editorial board can not be aware of the truth and they knowingly publish false information to push their political masters agenda.
    This is the free media western style!!!!!!…..lol

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2018 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress