'The New York Times,' in Editors' Note, Finds Much to Fault in its Iraq WMD Coverage: "'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.'
Yet nowhere does the Times suggest that it is penalizing any editors or reporters in any way.
One of the false Miller and Gordon stories (touting the now-famous 'aluminum tubes')did contain a few qualifiers, but they were 'buried deep.' When the pair followed up five days later they did report some misgivings by others, but these too 'appeared deep in the article.' When the Times finally gave 'full voice' to skeptics the challenge was reported on Page A 10, but 'it might well have belonged on Page A 1.'
Of course, the same could be said of their note today, which also falls on Page A 10.
Another Miller article, from April 21, 2003, that featured an Iraqi scientist (who later turned out to be an intelligence officer), seemed to go out of its way to provide what the Times calls 'the justification the Americans had been seeking for the invasion.' But in hindsight there was just one problem: 'The Times never followed up on the veracity of this source or the attempts to verify his claims.' "
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The NYT virtually ignored the voices of those few who dissented against the war. It belittled the protesters. It grossly under-reported their numbers. It is complicit in the railroading of America into the war in Iraq.
It is an ongoing disgrace, but if it actually investigates the claims of the administration now, instead of merely providing a mouthpiece for them, then they can redeem themselves.
- posted by geoff @ #