The New York Times Mea Culpa
Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Rachel Maddow: Trying to Skirt Work Laws, Corporations Are "Child Labor-Endorsing, Pro-Slavery Freaks"
DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman
Environment:
Whistleblowers Say Oil Reserve Numbers Deliberately Inflated to Avoid Panic, Appease the US
Matthew McDermott
Food:
Quitting Meat Is a Process -- Almost Impossible to Do All at Once
Jonathan Safran Foer
Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman
Immigration:
Immigrants and Health-Care: What Part of LEGAL Doesn't Washington Understand?
Marielena HincapiƩ
Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert
Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler
Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson
Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura
Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley
Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders
Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten
World:
Why the Ft. Hood Massacre Is George Bush's Fault
Thom Hartmann
After months of criticism of The New York Times' coverage of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- mainly directed at star reporter Judith Miller -- the paper's editors, in an extraordinary note to readers this morning, finally tackled the subject, acknowledging it was "past time" they do so. Following the sudden fall last week of Ahmad Chalabi, Miller's most famous source, they probably had no choice.
While it does not, in some ways, go nearly far enough, and is buried on Page A10, 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.
Today's critique is, in its own way, as devastating as last year's front-page corrective on Jayson Blair, though not nearly as long.
Nowhere in it, however, does the name of Judith Miller appear. The editors claim that the "problematic articles varied in authorship" and point out that while critics have "focused blame on individual reporters ... the problem was more complicated."
Yet, clearly, even in the Times' own view, Miller was the main culprit, though they seem reluctant, or ashamed, to say so. This is clear in analyzing today's critique. The editors single out six articles as being especially unfortunate, and Judith Miller had a hand in four of them: writing two on her own, co-authoring the other two with Michael Gordon. The only two non-Miller pieces were the earliest in the chronology, and they barely receive mention.
Starting nearly a year ago, E&P called on the Times to reassess Miller's work, and renewed the call more often than any other publication.
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 do the Times suggest that it is penalizing any editors or reporters in any way.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »
| More News and Analysis: | ||
|
Why the Ft. Hood Massacre Is George Bush's Fault Rights and Liberties: If Al Gore (or even Ralph Nader) had been President in 2001, the Ft. Hood massacre almost certainly wouldn't have happened. Because George W. Bush was president, it did. By Thom Hartmann, The Smirking Chimp. November 11, 2009. |
Whistleblowers Say Oil Reserve Numbers Deliberately Inflated to Avoid Panic, Appease the US Environment: Apparently the IEA was concerned that reporting the true reserve numbers would trigger a buying panic. By Matthew McDermott, TreeHugger. November 11, 2009. |
Quitting Meat Is a Process -- Almost Impossible to Do All at Once Food: When it comes to meat, change is almost always cast as an absolute. You are a vegetarian or you are not. It's a strange formulation, and it's distracting. By Jonathan Safran Foer, AlterNet. November 11, 2009. |
Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.