The New York Times comes in for well-deserved heat on badly reported articles, like the article just before the election in which the Times went out of its way to kill emerging stories on Trump and Russia. But that doesn’t mean there’s not some terrific reporting done by the Times, and a prime example is this video analysis of the Syrian chemical attack and statements from the Russian and Syrian government, which was put together by Malachy Browne, Natalie Reneau, and Mark Scheffler.
The trio combined official statements with careful analysis of cell phone video from citizens of Khan Sheikhoun, aerial photographs, drone footage, local reporting and military videos from both Russia and US.
Carefully walking step by step through the available information, they point out exactly how they validated the source and time of the videos, and what those videos reveal. Then they contrast their results with the statements from the Syrian and Russian governments to show how the information coming out of Damascus and Moscow includes purposeful distortions meant to cast doubt on the nature of the attack. The video work is backed up by interviews with local media and eyewitnesses to the Khan Sheikhoun attack.
The work is well-explained, detailed, and compelling. It’s transparent. It’s thorough. It shows why good reporting isn’t easy, but is invaluable.
Through their analysis, Browne, Reneau, and Scheffler show that both Russia and Syria provide a time for the attack that doesn’t match the timing of explosions recorded in the city. This is likely an attempt to disassociate the attack from planes that were tracked from a Syrian airbase by US military radar. Both Russia and Syria also provide matching descriptions of the target as a “large depot” where rebel weapons were stored. The NYT team shows that, not only did the bombs not hit any such depot, no such building exists in Khan Sheikhoun. Walking through before and after images, they’re able to show each building hit, most of which are identified by eyewitnesses as family homes.
One thing the video demonstrates is that, if someone takes the time to look, it’s possible to put together an incredibly rich picture of events taking place in an area were technology and infrastructure might be expected to be degraded.