NYTIMES/FROM THE EDITORS: The Times and Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?8dpc


FROM THE EDITORS
The Times and Iraq

Published: May 26, 2004

Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. We have examined the failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists. We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves.

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.

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.

<snip, more>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?8dpc

...I still have a lot of difficulty feeling very sympathetic toward anyone in a position of influence (in this case, the NYT) who swallowed the crapola hook, line, and sinker.

Happy to see anyone come around and face the truth, yes. But not terribly sympathetic; after all, if a nobody like me (or you, or any of us) who didn't have access to the big players somehow managed to see through the smokescreen...

Anybody get my point?

WHY?

WHY did they suspend journalism and take up the practice of pure state propaganda at that crucial moment?

This is not a rhetorical question.

MEDIA WHORE, when caught in the act. A truly great, non-biased newsource would NEVER have gone there. The fourth estate is supposed to be one of the checks and balances on our elected (whatever) government.

Perhaps if they ceased to be whores for the government
and the political parties, that would improve.

It's hard to believe that the New York Times in all this long-overdue mea culpa never even mentions the name of the one black widow at the center of this whole web of lies. And why does it come now, only after Chalabi, the primary source, has been thoroughly discredited. Any respect the Times might have hoped to gain is more than tarnished by how much this confession covers up. Judith Miller helped get well-intentioned American kids killed, and killed for reasons that were proven false. This deserves more than a simple apology. If they really wanted to make up for these lies, they would tell the true back story of how Chalabi and his friends in the Bush administration set out to purposefully deceive the American public into going to war.

with the request of an open apology by Miller,aka, black widow, herself?

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000518753

While refusing to name Miller, the Times' critique plainly and persistently finds fault. In referring to one of the bogus Miller pieces, the editors explain, "it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in." Then, just as tellingly, they add: "And until now we have not reported that to our readers."

The editors observe that Administration officials now acknowledge "they sometimes fell for misinformation" from exile sources, mentioning Chalabi as one. So, they note, did many news organizations, adding, "in particular, this one," an amazing admission.

Then consider this mea culpa: "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.

Yeah, I hate that woman. I have to wonder, given the
lack of quality of her work, why she still has a job.
It's maddening.

Welcome to DU, BTW. :hi:

Why is she still a senior writer? Until I see her demotion to a society writer, I will believe it.