NYT Criticizes Own Reporting on Iraq (without accompanying qualification)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nyt26may26.story

Paper Criticizes Own Reporting on Iraq
New York Times editors tell readers that some sources and articles on weapons of mass destruction should have been better scrutinized.

By Eric Slater, Times Staff Writer


The New York Times published a self-critical note to its readers late Tuesday, in effect apologizing for the paper's sometimes erroneous reporting on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq both before the United States and coalition countries invaded in March 2003 and during the early days of the occupation.

The mea culpa first appeared on the paper's website, and is in today's editions. The unusual note, which includes a pledge to "continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight," follows months of criticism.

Readers, other journalists and some antiwar politicians have argued that the paper's numerous stories suggesting that Saddam Hussein may have constructed a large weapons of mass destruction program helped bolster the Bush administration's argument for going to war. No such weapons have been found.<snip>

"But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been," the note continues. "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."

Many of the problematic articles "shared a common feature," the note says. "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."<snip>

Much of the paper's critique of its reportage revolved not around making some mistakes, but rather in reporting the allegations of some anti-Hussein figures without accompanying qualification, and in failing to correct mistakes in follow-up stories.<snip>

...this thread title tickled my funny bone.

The NYT has really been caught with its hand in the cookie jar a lot these past years, hasn't it?

Well, if they'll straighten out and start doing some real journalism, I'll forgive them.

:-)

I also will never trust them again. They have been very
sneeky about who they really serve and the veneer of
liberalism they have is strictly for purposes of deceit.

I think we see clearly now the fundamental difference between a respectable editorial staff like the NYT and the nut-jobs in news papers like the Washington(Moonies) Times, Fox and several others.

One will admit and correct their errors when after a year of investigations and reports from Iraq conclude that there was no imminent danger of an attack on the Americans from Iraq.

The rest of the nut-job propaganda news paper arm of the Republican-Taliban Party will continue to deny the evidence that they where wrong, or at the very worst continue the charade by repeating the same old propaganda as 'news'.

I think the second paragraph in their retraction of the WMD theories and reasons for war is what most journalist use as a excuse:
'In doing so — reviewing hundreds of articles written during the prelude to war and into the early stages of the occupation — we found an enormous amount of journalism that we are proud of. In most cases, what we reported was an accurate reflection of the state of our knowledge at the time, much of it painstakingly extracted from intelligence agencies that were themselves dependent on sketchy information. And where those articles included incomplete information or pointed in a wrong direction, they were later overtaken by more and stronger information. That is how news coverage normally unfolds.'-NYT

This shows either just how poorly the news organizations researched what they where writing, or just how well the misinformation was presented by the Bush miss-Administration(liars) and the CIA(tools). Even when there where alarm bells going off that the information was over-hyped, like the uranium from Niger or the aluminum rods, there was little questioning of the sources and motives of the source by the journalists.

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.-NYT

Even this (sort of) apology or retraction of months of reporting prior to the invasion and current occupation changes very little for me, as I had been saying for weeks before the invasion that there was no real indisputable evidence that Iraq posed any threat now or in the foreseeable future.

The failure of the press to present an unbiased and truthfully to the public the news is a severe blow to a free democracy. Any news or government that purposely distorts the information for their own agenda is as much an act of treason as any made by any organizations or individuals can be.
To falsify, lie and purposeful distortion of information to propaganda to the public is a dangerous and quick slide down from a respectable government to a fascist banana-republic or even worse.

We can always vote out a corrupt government, but its much harder to replace dishonest journalists.

starting with Judith Miller.



:evilfrown: