If you’re the kind of person who’d like to maintain a healthy skepticism about the news media without crossing the border into they’re-taking-their-orders- directly-from-a-cabal- of-alien-overlords territory, good news.
The New York Times has come out with an extraordinary
assessment of its coverage during the run-up to the war in Iraq, and finds itself wanting:
“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.”
A lot of the language in this self-critique is qualified and tentative: new information might well have belonged on A1; claims should have been presented more cautiously; it looks as if the Times was duped. Would that the language in the original stories had been just as nuanced.
Still, the article is extraordinary coming from a profession that often seems to enjoy scrutinizing politicians far more closely than it would be willing to tolerate itself. And the piece serves as a useful toolbox for anyone who thinks that news coverage, well-intentioned or not, deserves a hard second look.
