'Baby 81' story is a New York Times fake

MANY JOURNALISTS ARE WMD'S: 'WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION'

''Never check a story: you might loose it'' ?

'Baby 81' story a media beat up

"Invented almost completely by a New York Times reporter and a host of other ill-informed journalists following her lead."

"If there is a Pulitzer award for embellishing, exaggerating, and outright lying and misleading in print," he wrote, "the coverage of 'Baby 81' would merit top billing."

Francis Till - National Bussiness Review - New Zealand

FPF-fwd. - Feb. 21 - 2005 - According to 'Lanka Business Online', one of the most publicised stories of the Boxing Day tsunami 'Baby 81' was invented almost completely by a New York Times reporter and a host of other ill-informed journalists following her lead.

Google "Baby 81" and the news search engine returns over 2600 stories filed in the last month, making it one of the most covered stories in the post-tsunami period.

[HR/Google: 803.000 x 'Baby 81' today - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/6edcm ]

The basics of the story are known to almost everyone: A miraculous survivor, an infant boy tagged 'baby 81' by the hospital that received him, was pursued by nine sets of parents. The dispute was resolved only last week when a court ordered DNA test established a young Sri Lankan couple as the infant's parents.

None of it, beyond the fact that the infant survived and has, at last, been reunited with his parents, is true, according to the LBO, which calls the New York Times
journalist, Somini Sengupta -- and others who followed her intitial story - "journalists of the type of Jason Blair, the New York Times reporter who made up sensational stories and eventually was forced out of his job in 2003."

On 26 January, the NYT ran a story under Ms Sengupta's byline --For Tsunami Orphan, No Name but Many Parents -- that set of a coverage frenzy. In it, Ms
Sengupta made several claims that the LBO's Amal Jayasinghe refutes:

* The child was designated baby 81 because it was the 81st admission to the hospital's pediatric ward;

* Nine couples claimed the child, some of whom
"have threatened suicide if the baby is not delivered into their arms;"

* Sri Lankan newspapers were carrying "almost
daily narratives" about the baby's fate;

* Staff fearing for the baby's safety were hiding him "in the operating theater every night for his own protection."

In addition, there was this snippet of "analysis":

Could it possibly be that nine couples honestly believe Baby No. 81 to be their flesh and blood? Could it be that childless parents are looking for a boon amid the disaster? Could it be that a photogenic baby boy has inspired a craving that a girl would not have? All these theories circulate on the streets of Kalmunai.

But, says Amal Jayasinghe, the story was largely invented and the media coverage of the invented story caused enormous hardship -- and there is nothing to support the NYT conjecture about the relative value of a
"photogenic baby boy" over that of a girl.

"The unprecedented media attention brought more misery and heartache to a young Tamil couple who survived the December 26 tsunamis, but ended up in jail trying to get back their only son Abilash amid an avalanche of mis-reporting," he said in his followup story, "Lost in translation."

"If there is a Pulitzer award for embellishing, exaggerating, and outright lying and misleading in print," he wrote, "the coverage of 'Baby 81' would merit top billing."

As he tells it:

* The hospital never designated the infant 'baby 81' and the infant was not the 81st admission to the pediatric unit;

* Only one couple ever claimed the child;

* Sri Lankan papers only began coverage of the incident after international press - led by the NYT - had initiated coverage;

* Staff never hid the baby. Local authorities -- and the judge in the case -- say they are perplexed by claims that nine sets of parents laid claim to the infant.

Kalmunai headquarters chief inspector WC Wijetilleka
told LBO: "Only one couple claimed the child. No one else has come forward to make a legal claim. We are convinced they are the parents."

And that couple -- Jeyaraja Junitha, 25, and her husband, M Jeyaraja, 30 - was, after DNA testing, reunited with the child. Nor did any reporter ever interview any other person with a claim, the LBO said.

"It is amazing that even after the experience of Jason Blair who cooked up quotes and even created people to suit his stories, the New York Times did not think it fit to talk to at least one more couple said to be claiming the child, " the LBO said.

The original NYT story quoted Dr K Muhunthan, "the hospital gynecologist who has taken on Baby No. 81's case", as saying the couples he has met seem convinced about their claims. "Most of them believe this is their baby," the NYT quotes Dr Muhunthan as having said.

"Maybe all children they look at, they think it's their baby. I'm not angry at them really." But the LBO said others who had been quoted as having made similar statements about multiple claims were backing away from those statements, saying now that they had meant only that other couples were showing much interest in the identity of the child.

And it now appears that the only person who had threatened suicide was the child's actual mother. "Since the start, there has been only this couple claiming the baby as theirs," Judge Moahaidein said in his 22-page order handing the child over to the Jeyarajahs on Wednesday, according to the LBO.

"There have been no nine couples as reported by the media." The role of the hospital authorities, particularly one doctor who handled the case may be questionable and perhaps be looked at in a criminal investigation, according to the regional police chief, the LBO said.

Amal Jayasinghe suspects it is possible something was "lost in translation" -- resulting in a misunderstanding in the initial story. But, he asks, "how
about the front-line reporters from international organisations who went to the hospital to check the story out.

" Were they taken for a ride too, or simply did not
want to kill a good story through over verification?"

One thing appears clear: the media attention activated the social welfare and court bureaucracy, delaying the return of the infant to his parents and causing much unnecessary grief through uncertainty.

-0-

[end item - Media fake: 'Baby 81' -
Url.: http://tinyurl.com/6vkaw ]

Lanka Business Online: Url.: http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/

Alternet - 'When the Media Fake It' -
Url.: http://tinyurl.com/64mob

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
http://tinyurl.com/4ar5e
Editor : Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/5uvtv
The Netherlands
FPF@Chello.nl

The Dutch author this far has worked abroad 4 decades for international media as a foreign correspondent, of which 10 years - also during Gulf War I - in the Arab World and the Middle East. - At present 'Persona non Grata' in Holland :-)

Seeing worldwide that every bullet and every bomb breeds more terrorism! - US Senator Hollings agrees:'We have caused more terrorism than we have gotten rid of' - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/2bqza

-0-