Of all the media outlets one might expect to toe the March 8 coalition party line, the New York Times is pretty far down on the list.  But that is exactly what has happened, twice in the past five days, under Hassan Fattah’s byline.

In his article published on August 6, Fattah painted the Metn by-elections as an unambiguous defeat for Amin Gemayel’s Kataeb party.  He referred to the loss as “a referendum on the March 14 Movement, which has increasingly alienated many Christians.”  In his follow up article from August 10, Fattah claimed that American support had “doomed” Gemayel’s by-election campaign.

This is not just a matter of a difference in political opinion: Both of the above claims are demonstrably false.  Fattah omits any mention of the 2005 parliamentary elections, where the candidates on Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun’s “Reform and Change” list each won in excess of 50,000 votes.  In contrast, the Kataeb party’s 2005 candidate, Pierre Gemayel won less than 30,000 votes.
 
In 2007, Michel Aoun’s candidate won the seat by a razor-thin margin – 418 votes, or 50.2%.  Overall, Metn voters were split down the middle in the by-elections.  This is a far cry from Aoun’s dominant showing in 2005, where he claimed to have won 70% of the Christian vote in Mount Lebanon. In addition, Gemayel was the clear choice of the Maronite community, winning 58.6% of Maronite votes to the FPM’s 40.7%.  Contrary to Mr. Fattah’s assertion that the Metn by-elections showed that the Christians are “increasingly alienated” from the March 14 coalition, the actual breakdown of results shows the exact opposite.

Sympathetic observers might argue that the mistakes in Fattah’s first article were simply the result of a poor knowledge of Lebanon’s political history.  However, Fattah’s second article, published on August 10, is unequivocally an example of shoddy and irresponsible journalism.  In his second piece, Fattah argues that one factor in March 14’s defeat “has become common wisdom in the region: Mr. Gemayel’s doom seems to have been sealed by his support from the Bush administration and the implied agendas behind its backing.”

Bizarrely, Fattah wrote the article from Dubai, and relies primarily on non-Lebanese sources.  His primary source appears to be a Saudi named Turki al-Rasheed, who is quoted extensively, as well as a Jordanian academic.  The only Lebanese sources he cites are Michel Aoun’s nephew Alain, and a Lebanese journalist named Nicola Nassif, who works at the pro-opposition daily al-Akhbar.

However, Nassif does not agree that American influence played a role in Gemayel’s defeat in the Metn by-elections.  In fact, when contacted by NOW Lebanon, Nassif argued the exact opposite.  “I don’t think Gemayel was defeated because the Americans were backing him,” he claimed.  “It’s too much of a simplification to say they led to Gemayel’s defeat.”

Fattah merely quotes Nassif making the undeniable assertion that American-backed candidates have fared poorly in other areas throughout the Middle East.  However, as anyone with a basic understanding of Lebanon is aware, the political terrain of Mount Lebanon is significantly different from other regions in the Arab world.  The predominantly Christian population of Mount Lebanon, and the Metn district that voted in the recent by-election, diverges both culturally and politically from the Muslim majority in the broader region. The political trends that animate the rest of the Middle East should be applied cautiously when referring to Lebanon.

A Pew poll on public opinion in the Middle East released in June 2007 confirms this divergence.  The poll found that 82% of Lebanese Christians hold a favorable impression of the United States – the same demographic that makes up the overwhelming majority of voters in the Metn.  How were Gemayel’s fortunes “doomed” by the support of a country which the majority of voters view favorably?  Fattah provides no answer.

Mr. Rasheed, the Saudi source whose credibility is built on the fact that he “watched last Sunday’s elections closely,” reiterated his support for Fattah’s conclusion in remarks to NOW Lebanon.  Rasheed dismissed the Pew findings, and argued, “I don’t think [the Lebanese Christians] really like the Americans.”  He spoke of global opposition to the American administration.  “I don’t think anyone really likes the Americans.  Even the British, even in the US itself.”

However, Rasheed’s argument is contradicted by observers on the ground in Lebanon.  Even Nada Bakri, Mr. Fattah’s New York Times colleague who contributed reporting for both articles, disagrees with Fattah’s conclusion that Gemayel was hurt by American support.  “It is true that America and its allies have been losing [elections] in the region more broadly, but I don’t know if this is the case in Lebanon,” Bakri said to NOW Lebanon.  “Christians in Lebanon, and Metn specifically, don’t really dislike America.  It’s more complicated than that.”

After being publicly contradicted by both his Lebanese sources and his own staff, it is unclear on what if any credible basis Fattah is making his arguments.  An e-mail requesting clarification regarding these articles was recently sent to Mr. Fattah, who is apparently on vacation.  For the sake of the New York Times, we can only hope that it is a long one.