Finally! A mea culpa from the New York Times on its coverage of the non-existent WMDs


Today New York Times editors finally admitted that they failed to do their jobs when it came to vetting sources for the disinformation on "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

It's about time.

From the New York Times editors today, comes this:

...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.

And later:

Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. 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.

More here.

See also this article from Editor & Publisher, which notes a number of problems with the Times' admission of error here.

The thing is, you have to wonder why the editors and reporters were so eager to rush to judgment on this. What is it about the nature of the business that made them so ready to believe the now discredited sources, when there were plenty of other people who were criticizing those sources, outside of the Bush Administration? Why would they not listen to the anti-war points of view? Why did they give so little attention to the people who said these sources were suspect?

It's a bit too little, and very much too late, for them to admit this mistake. Better late than never, I suppose. But still, I can only think of the thousands of lives that have been lost -- American, Iraqi, and others -- thanks to the Times' complicity in the selling of the war.

Posted: Wed - May 26, 2004 at 11:52 AM          

©