In an Editors' Note, the New York Times reassesses its pre-Iraq War coverage, particularly its coverage of weapons of mass destruction.
"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 Washington Post notes that "while many news organizations reported on WMD claims before the war, few did so as aggressively as the Times."
Editor and Publisher comments: "While it does not, in some ways, go nearly far enough, this low-key, but scathing, self-rebuke is nothing less than a primer on how not to do journalism, particularly if you are an enormously influential newspaper with a costly invasion of another nation at stake."
Jack Shafer points the finger at Times reporter Judith Miller, who goes unnamed in the newspaper's mea culpa: "But in the 18-month run-up to the war, Miller led the press pack in advancing the WMD case. And she did it in the most influential newspaper in America, which has failed to walk the dog back to reveal how she got it so wrong for so long."
The largest collection of political memorabilia in one place.
