[Media-watch] FW: Paper of Somebody's Record==NYT mea culpa analysed

[David Miller]

----------
From: "Ed Herman" <hermane at wharton.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 17:09:08 -0400
To: 
Subject: FW: Paper of Somebody's Record==NYT mea culpa analysed

 

Subject: Paper of Somebody's Record==NYT mea culpa analysed

 
http://www.COMMONDREAMS.ORG/headlines04/0526-09.htm
 
'The New York Times,' in Editors' Note, Finds Much to Fault in its Iraq WMD
Coverage
by Greg Mitchell 
NEW YORK  -- 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 does the Times suggest that it is penalizing any editors or
reporters in any way.

One of the false Miller and Gordon stories (touting the now-famous "aluminum
tubes")did contain a few qualifiers, but they were "buried deep." When the
pair followed up five days later they did report some misgivings by others,
but these too "appeared deep in the article." When the Times finally gave
"full voice" to skeptics the challenge was reported on Page A 10, but "it
might well have belonged on Page A 1."

Of course, the same could be said of their note today, which also falls on
Page A 10.

Another Miller article, from April 21, 2003, that featured an Iraqi
scientist (who later turned out to be an intelligence officer), seemed to go
out of its way to provide what the Times calls "the justification the
Americans had been seeking for the invasion." But in hindsight there was
just one problem: "The Times never followed up on the veracity of this
source or the attempts to verify his claims."

Yet the critique ends on a hopeful note: "We consider the story of Iraq's
weapons, and of the pattern of misinformation, to be unfinished business.
And we fully intend to continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the
record straight." 

The Times also directs readers to its Web site, where a special section
carries links to some of the disputed stories. Public Editor Daniel Okrent
now promises his own critique this Sunday.
In a note to Okrent in March, New York Times Executive Editor Keller said he
"did not see a prima facie case for recanting or repudiating the [WMD]
stories." He called Miller "a smart, well-sourced, industrious and fearless
reporter with a keen instinct for news, and an appetite for dauntingly hard
subjects." 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.stir.ac.uk/pipermail/media-watch/attachments/20040527/e2a2a910/attachment-0001.htm