BOB GARFIELD: In more than one way, it isn't easy being an old gray lady of journalism. The New York Times has certainly found itself abused quite a bit lately. The latest broadside comes in a book titled The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Mis-Reports US Foreign Policy. The premise of authors Howard Friel and Richard Falk is that the paper of record irresponsibly stood mute as a series of US administrations flouted international law in pursuit of their global objectives. Readers of the paper, they argue, would be hard-pressed to find any mention of the many UN resolutions, World Court rulings or global treaties that run contrary to those objectives. Co-author Richard Falk says the examples of New York Times negligence comprise a history -an insufficiently critical history - of US impunity.

RICHARD FALK: The whole coverage of the Vietnam War, the coverage of the Iraq debate prior to the war, the way in which the Nicaragua judgment of the World Court was treated, the recent decision by the World Court on the security wall between Israel and Palestine. But when international law was on the side of the US -- for instance, during the hostage crisis in Iran, when there was a World Court decision supporting the US view that holding the hostages was a violation of international law, the New York Times accentuated that. The Times is very happy with international law when it supports American foreign policy. It only avoids its implications when it's critical of foreign policy.

BOB GARFIELD: But, in fairness to the Times, they have over the years editorialized about the US relationship with the UN and about international courts of justice and Kyoto and so forth - overall, over the decades -suggesting that the United States should pay more attention to global warming - not less -should be more in tune with the United Nations - not less. Aren't in many ways the components of your premise about the responsibilities of the New York Times found every day within its editorial and news pages?

RICHARD FALK: I wish they were, and it's precisely because they have a liberal outlook that is generally supportive of international cooperation that one would have expected them to treat international law in these critical foreign policy debates in a more evenhanded way. Their record is less than what one would hope for.

BOB GARFIELD: Do you believe that this is because they are intentionally biased in support of the administration in power, no matter what it would be, or is there some other explanation for what you call its reflexive support of administration policy no matter how unilateral it may be?

RICHARD FALK: I think the main thing is that the Times is pre-occupied with maintaining its credibility, and its credibility depends with not seeming to be too far removed from government foreign policy, particularly in war-peace issues. Until that policy goes bad. After the Vietnam War began to fail, and now that the Iraq policies are failing, you'll find lots of criticism of the policies, because then their credibility depends on showing a certain sense of objectivity.

BOB GARFIELD: I think it's dangerous and probably fatuous to think of the American media as some monolith, you know, driven by the same interests and biases and so forth. Is it possible that it's also mistaken to view the New York Times as a monolith or even an institution that is driven in everything it does by some central principle? Is there not the chance that in your book you are attributing to the New York Times a kind of institutional will that really doesn't exist on the ground, day to day?

RICHARD FALK: We do feel that there is a consistent New York Times philosophy that governs the limits of what journalists and contributors are able to say, and there are examples of journalists that transcended those limits and were, in effect, punished or transferred to less high profile roles -- and we give some examples in the book. But, you also need to remember that there's a sophistication about this philosophy. It doesn't want to seem too rigid, because then it would interfere with one important goal of the New York Times, which is to convey to readers that, in fact, it is objective and impartial.

BOB GARFIELD: Newspapers have often been called the first rough draft of history. Essentially, their job is to record what happened and then report and sometimes analyze it for the readership. If the United States government, especially since the end of World War II, has behaved in a certain way with respect to international institutions like the United Nations and the World Health Organization, can we expect the New York Times to do anything but reflect the way the government is behaving?

RICHARD FALK: Yes, I think we can expect a responsible newspaper that claims to be the newspaper of record to give the American people or its readers the kind of information that would help them reach an informed judgment. We're not asking that the New York Times become polemical. What we're saying is that, by excluding criticism from the perspective of international law, they are excluding one of the most important ways of judging controversial foreign policy decisions.

BOB GARFIELD: Well, Richard, thank you very much.

RICHARD FALK: Thank you.

BOB GARFIELD: Richard Falk is a visiting professor of global and international studies at University of California, Santa Barbara and author, with Howard Friel, of The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Mis-Reports US Foreign Policy. Editors at the New York Times declined our invitation to respond. [MUSIC] Coming up, a special look at magazines, including how to succeed, how to fail, and how to win the heart of a man called Mr. Magazine. This is On the Media, from NPR. [FUNDING CREDITS]