[Previous entry: "Children's Aid Society"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Kerry's House of Ketchup #13"]

05/26/2004 Archived Entry: "NY Times criticises its Iraq war coverage"

Posted by steve @ 08:06 PM EST [Link]

I'M ALMOST LAUGHING: Today the NY Times called itself out and declared that its reporting on Iraq has been abysmal. Are they apologizing for their relentless stream of biased reporting about the situation after the war? Nope. They're apologizing for reporting what we all knew, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.

The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.

Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all.

See, they're real sorry for reporting that Iraq had WMDs but not real sorry for reporting that everything in Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket. The scuttlebutt is that although they didn't name her, Judith Miller is the one whose articles are under review.

I wonder also if the Times isn't doing this to put pressure on the Bush administration. See, they were big enough to admit they were wrong, so why won't the president?

Read on. (Free registration required)