• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NY Times apologizes for Iraq coverage

zakur

Illuminator
Z
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
3,264
Story
The New York Times today issued an extraordinary mea culpa over its coverage of Iraq, admitting it had been misled about the presence of weapons of mass destruction by sources including the controversial Iraqi leader Ahmad Chalabi.
In a note to readers published today under the headline 'The Times and Iraq', the editors of the newspaper said they had 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," they continued.

The paper said it was encouraged to report the claims by "United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq".

But today for the first time it admitted that accounts of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq were never independently verified.

"It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq, but in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in. And until now we have not reported that to our readers," the paper said.
Click to expand...
Will the administration be issuing their own apology soon?
 
From an administration that took the position of "you are either with us or against us" I will be interested to hear how such an apology, IF it comes out, sounds.
 
Charlie Monoxide said:
Let's all us non-Republicans hold our breathe until they do .....

Charlie (it'll help the election) Monoxide
Click to expand...

My psychic prediction: If you start holding your breath now, you´ll be dead and decomposed a dozen times over before one of these guys issues a sincere apology.

And, no, I don´t want the Million for that prediction. Send it to the Anyone-but-Bush campaign fund.
 
Wait, I thought the NYTimes was the leader of the "liberal media."

To think that they were less skeptical of the agenda of the Iraqi exiles and the Bush administration than other journalism sources...

Doesn't this put a nail in the "liberal media" conspiracy?
 
That's what they get for putting Jayson Blair on the story.

What? It wasn't Blair? You mean The Times is chock-full of lazy Bush-ass-kissing incompetents?

Don't worry. The press don't like to be lied to and made a fool of. They are already starting to turn on Bush, and will be dancing on his grave by October.
 
To me, it seemed like they were tip-toeing around Judith Miller's close relationship with Chalabi. They provide a "sin bin" with disputed articles, and a whole lot of the faulty reporting was Miller's work.

I still think they will have to address it at some point.
 
evil sutko said:
To me, it seemed like they were tip-toeing around Judith Miller's close relationship with Chalabi. They provide a "sin bin" with disputed articles, and a whole lot of the faulty reporting was Miller's work.

I still think they will have to address it at some point.
Click to expand...
I am sorry to have to keep resorting to scatalogical invective, but it is a disgrace and a scandal that high-flying journalists are addicted the gaseous emissions of their subjects' derrieres.
 
Remarkable -- but only up to a point.
It's great to read the Times's editors listing some of the occasions on which they published misleading stories and it's nice that they apologise for printing rubbish. However, am I expected to believe that the reason for months and months of utter nonsense in the paper is just because editors were "too intent on rushing scoops into the paper"?

If that is the case, why were there no misleading scoops that detracted from the case for war? Why did every false piece of information that the Times gave a page 1 headline support the invasion of Iraq? Plenty of people of varying degrees of reliability predicted hundreds of thousands of deaths from famine and disease as the immediate result of an invasion, so why did the editors of the Times not give over their front page to that unverifiable scoop as well?

This sackcloth-and-ashes routine is simply another example of the same thing that journalists have been doing for about a year now.

The point is, it was plain to everyone who did even the most cursory reading on the subject that Iraqi exiles were feeding convenient lies to the media and Governments. That was obvious to everyone I spoke to at the time and was stated repeatedly in the alternative media (this site included) and even occasionally in the mainstream media. If journalists really didn't know this, they have no business being journalists and should resign.
 
demon said:
Remarkable -- but only up to a point.
It's great to read the Times's editors listing some of the occasions on which they published misleading stories and it's nice that they apologise for printing rubbish. However, am I expected to believe that the reason for months and months of utter nonsense in the paper is just because editors were "too intent on rushing scoops into the paper"?

If that is the case, why were there no misleading scoops that detracted from the case for war? Why did every false piece of information that the Times gave a page 1 headline support the invasion of Iraq? Plenty of people of varying degrees of reliability predicted hundreds of thousands of deaths from famine and disease as the immediate result of an invasion, so why did the editors of the Times not give over their front page to that unverifiable scoop as well?

This sackcloth-and-ashes routine is simply another example of the same thing that journalists have been doing for about a year now.

The point is, it was plain to everyone who did even the most cursory reading on the subject that Iraqi exiles were feeding convenient lies to the media and Governments. That was obvious to everyone I spoke to at the time and was stated repeatedly in the alternative media (this site included) and even occasionally in the mainstream media. If journalists really didn't know this, they have no business being journalists and should resign.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more.

The easiest case: Even before going to war, Chalabi was being reported in the media as being snuggle-buddies with Cheney, Rumsfeld (& Co.) and being detested as a liar and a cheat in the State Dept and the CIA.

So... what then. Did anyone call into question, with Bush directly, what the stance of The United States is toward Chalabi? Why weren't The Times and the rest calling into question how much of the justification for the war was provided by Chalabi? And how much was vetted through other sources?

Christ-almighty, it just occurred to me... If Powell the loyal idiot went before the UN and made the case for war using intelligence provided by the CIA, which as it turns out was provided by a Chalabi plant, where in the hell is the press now? Why aren't they asking Tenet and Powell why they trusted Chalabi enough to hang Powell's much-vaunted integrity on the line with Chalabisms?

Not-so-simple answer. The press (all news media) wanted this war, because war is big business. REMEMBER: JOURNALISTIC MEDIA ARE BUSINESSES. THEIR PURPOSE IS PROFIT. ACCURACY IS SECONDARY.
 
Christ-almighty, it just occurred to me... If Powell the loyal idiot went before the UN and made the case for war using intelligence provided by the CIA, which as it turns out was provided by a Chalabi plant, where in the hell is the press now? Why aren't they asking Tenet and Powell why they trusted Chalabi enough to hang Powell's much-vaunted integrity on the line with Chalabisms?
QUOTE]

Because there were more than Chalabi and cohorts providing intel to the government. It is pretty apalling to think that people would believe that the USA would go to war because of one source of infomormation.

SilentNight
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by SilentNight

Because there were more than Chalabi and cohorts providing intel to the government. It is pretty apalling to think that people would believe that the USA would go to war because of one source of infomormation.

SilentNight
Click to expand...
Appalling indeed. I'd like to see a bit-by-bit analysis of the accuracy, sources and vetting of Powell's presetation to the UN, Bush's speeches, Rumsfelds ruminations, etc. What I know so far is quite appalling.
 
hgc said:
Not-so-simple answer. The press (all news media) wanted this war, because war is big business. REMEMBER: JOURNALISTIC MEDIA ARE BUSINESSES. THEIR PURPOSE IS PROFIT. ACCURACY IS SECONDARY.
Click to expand...
I don't know if this was characteristic or anomalic of radio coverage, but in the weeks leading up to the Iraqi invasion I happened to catch a great deal of my news briefs from WCBS radio in New York ("The Flagship Station of CBS News"). It should be said that they are a headline/traffic/weather station, and not a source for in-depth coverage.

Anyway, they closed each pertinent update (six an hour) with the tag, "Keep your radio tuned to WCBS for the latest on the Showdown with Saddam!" Alliterative, sure, but unnecessarily provocative, and not a little childish.

But that hardly compared to how the station upped the amps once the real action began. For every six-per-hour report (continuing for a few weeks, if I recall correctly), WCBS used a prerecorded intro that can only be described as bombastic. First, one heard an orchestral "sting", after and over which an announcer enthusiastically proclaimed, "America at Waaaaaaar!" Just like that. Waaaaaaar!

Goodness. Gracious. Me.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
...First, one heard an orchestral "sting", after and over which an announcer enthusiastically proclaimed, "America at Waaaaaaar!" Just like that. Waaaaaaar!

Goodness. Gracious. Me.
Click to expand...
Ha! Sounds like a tractor pull ad.

And the cable news channels had their "America at War" type special lead-ins for months and months leading up to the invasion. Any kind of backing away from the precipice was unlikely in that atmosphere. News Corp. (Fox News), AOL Time Warner (CNN), General Electric/Microsoft (MSNBC) couldn't possibly allow their correspondents to participate in serious journalism and question the rationale and the possible outcome of this war, when it might drive viewers to the competition. Nor could they stear clear of the Monday Night Football type hype intros to their press-release repeating exercises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom