Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | New York Times says it was duped by Pentagon 'cunning': "The New York Times donned sackcloth and ashes again yesterday when its ombudsman said the newspaper had been duped by 'the cunning campaign' of those that wanted the world to believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Some stories, Daniel Okrent said, 'pushed Pentagon assertions so aggressively you could almost sense epaulets on the shoulders of editors'. The half-page critique of the newspaper's coverage during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq followed a separate admission signed by 'the editors' last week that said the newspaper had not been as 'rigorous as it should have been' in questioning Iraqi exiles.
Mr Okrent said that in the run-up to the invasion, 'cloaked government sources ... insinuated themselves and their agendas into prewar cov erage'. The newspaper's failure, he said, was institutional. 'To anyone who read the paper between September 2002 and June 2003, the impression that Saddam Hussein possessed, or was acquiring, a frightening arsenal of WMD seemed unmistakable.'
Mr Okrent said much of the inaccurate WMD coverage was 'inappropriately italicised by lavish front-page display and heavy-breathing headlines'. Other stories that had challenged the assertions or tried to put the claims into perspective 'were played as quietly as a lullaby'.
In one instance, a story by James Risen - 'CIA aides feel pressure in preparing Iraqi reports' - was completed several days before the invasion and 'unaccountably' held for week. The report finally appeared three days after the war broke out and was buried on page 10 of the newspaper's second section. "
- posted by geoff @ #