NYT admission of faulty reporting 'long overdue'

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,253159,00.html

NEW YORK - A day after the New York Times printed an unusual critique of its own reporting on Iraq, saying it should have been more sceptical about some claims from Iraqi dissidents, the paper's decision came up for mixed reviews from media pundits.

Some praised the decision while others said it fell far short of full disclosure and was long overdue.

<snip>

Some blasted the paper for not singling out and sanctioning Times reporter Judith Miller, whose reports have been widely challenged.

'Miller's lies provided the pretext for war. Her lies cost lives,' says Ms Amy Goodman, author of The Exception To The Rulers, which takes her to task for her stories.

...more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/opinion/L27IRAQ.html

This one comes closest to my view:

To the Editor:

I'm troubled by what you leave out of your editors' article about The Times's reporting during the prelude to war in Iraq.

You talk about what The Times did wrong, but not why or what you're going to do about it.

The Times was guilty of credulous and biased reporting. How do you account for that?

It's not enough to point to your reliance on bad informants. There will always be bad informants. How will you try to prevent such credulous reporting in the future?

VICKI O'DAY
Menlo Park, Calif., May 26, 2004

"There must be a lesson here somewhere. Perhaps it is this: Don't believe anything this administration says unless it can be independently verified."

"Perhaps if you and other news organizations had shone a brighter light on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney before the last presidential election, we would have no Iraq war to report on today at all."