Thursday, May 27, 2004
I'm sorry....so sorry....
The New York Times has finally seen the error of their ways.
I've personally thought that their reporting in the lead up to the Iraq invasion was abyssmal. Times reporter Judith Miller was especially bad in her reliance upon sources such as Ahmed Chalabi (who was known even then as a nefarious character).
In this mea culpa the Times editorial staff admits to a series of errors and bad judgement on some of their stories:
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.
The Times states specific stories that it feels lacked the proper rigorous research. Further, they show that stories that debunked some of the page one pieces that needed more research (such as the aluminum tubes for nukes in Iraq) were often buried on page 15 or some such several days later.
I plan to see if the Times holds themselves now to their new decree:
We consider the story of Iraq's weapons, and of the pattern of misinformation, to be unfinished business. And we fully intend to continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight.
|
I've personally thought that their reporting in the lead up to the Iraq invasion was abyssmal. Times reporter Judith Miller was especially bad in her reliance upon sources such as Ahmed Chalabi (who was known even then as a nefarious character).
In this mea culpa the Times editorial staff admits to a series of errors and bad judgement on some of their stories:
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.
The Times states specific stories that it feels lacked the proper rigorous research. Further, they show that stories that debunked some of the page one pieces that needed more research (such as the aluminum tubes for nukes in Iraq) were often buried on page 15 or some such several days later.
I plan to see if the Times holds themselves now to their new decree:
We consider the story of Iraq's weapons, and of the pattern of misinformation, to be unfinished business. And we fully intend to continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight.
Return to Main
