Bjørn Stærk recently reported on a story broadcast on Euronews that inspired me to try coining a new phrase.

As Bjørn's relays it, a reporter claimed that recent demonstrations in Iraq showed how beloved Saddam Hussein is of some Iraqis, and about how huge pro-Saddam rallies indicate that "although there's obviously quite a bit of propaganda involved, such staggering results reflect at least some of the reality in Iraq." (Note that Bjørn links to a perfectly reasonable CNN story, but it's the EuroNews story he saw broadcast that he's criticizing.)

There needs to be a word for this sort of report. I propose we call it a "Duranty." Why?

Walter Duranty (not to be confused with the late, great Jimmy Durante, of course) was an American journalist who, for many years, acted as the New York Times' chief correspondent to Stalin's Soviet Union. For his reporting on the Soviets' "Great Experiment," he was eventually awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

Duranty is also generally credited with the phrase "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs." If you've ever used the phrase, keep in mind that he first popularized it. He did so in his reports and political commentaries on Stalin's Soviet Union.

So why does this world-renowned journalist come to mind when hearing about worshipful reporting of propaganda? Because he spent a decade sending reports to New York about the great progress and success of the Soviet system. While Duranty was telling the world that reports of mass starvations were exaggerations by right-wing reactionaries, the Soviet government was putting up signs saying "Eating your children is an act of barbarism."

His reports of concentration camps, beatings, torture, and general repression were all written about the same way. There was "some truth" to the "wild exaggerations," of course. Their system wasn't perfect. But could we really say it was worse than the American system, with its poor and disenfranchised masses stepped upon by greedy capitalists? Besides, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

At least 5 million "eggs" were broken during this Pulitzer-winning stint. If by "eggs" you mean women, children, and men intentionally starved to death. Tens of millions of "eggs" if you count the people sent to the concentration camps for thoughtcrimes.

It all seems to have been a mix of ideology, incompetence, denial, and (possibly) bribery.

But lie he did, and gave fuel to generations of people who continued to spout lies about an evil empire. Possibly more than any other Western journalist, he helped keep the Marxist lie alive, by being the first respected journalist to pooh-pooh those "hysterical" anti-Communists with their "wild exaggerations." He wasn't the last, but he was the first.

Oh, by the way, the New York Times has never addressed Duranty's crimes. The New York Times does, however, still include his name on its annual list of its alumni who won Pulitzers.

And the Pulitzer committee? Not a word from them so far, either. The New York Times is still proud of Walter Duranty, and so, apparently, is the Pulitzer committee.

Ladies and gentlemen, from now on, whenever I see a news report that talks about "Israeli occupation" of Palestine... about America's "rape of the environment"... about the millions of children "America has slaughtered" in Iraq... about the IRA "freedom fighters" in Northern Ireland... about the "free health care and high rate of literacy" brought to Cuba by Castro... I now know what to call that report--and that reporter.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: The Duranty. Acceptable alternate usage: "A Duranty report."

Pass it on. Use it liberally.