New York Times says it was duped by Pentagon 'cunning'

Category: Americas, World Affairs Topics: Iraq, Saddam Hussein Views: 5790
5790

The New York Times donned sackcloth and ashes again yesterday when its ombudsman said the newspaper had been duped by "the cunning campaign" of those that wanted the world to believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. 

Some stories, Daniel Okrent said, "pushed Pentagon assertions so aggressively you could almost sense epaulets on the shoulders of editors". The half-page critique of the newspaper's coverage during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq followed a separate admission signed by "the editors" last week that said the newspaper had not been as "rigorous as it should have been" in questioning Iraqi exiles. 

Mr. Okrent said that in the run-up to the invasion, "cloaked government sources ... insinuated themselves and their agendas into prewar coverage". The newspaper's failure, he said, was institutional. "To anyone who read the paper between September 2002 and June 2003, the impression that Saddam Hussein possessed, or was acquiring, a frightening arsenal of WMD seemed unmistakable." 

Mr. Okrent said much of the inaccurate WMD coverage was "inappropriately italicised by lavish front-page display and heavy-breathing headlines". Other stories that had challenged the assertions or tried to put the claims into perspective "were played as quietly as a lullaby". 

In one instance, a story by James Risen - "CIA aides feel pressure in preparing Iraqi reports" - was completed several days before the invasion and "unaccountably" held for week. The report finally appeared three days after the war broke out and was buried on page 10 of the newspaper's second section. 

Many "scoops" based on unsubstantiated revelations have still to be revisited, the ombudsman said. 

Mr. Okrent said he hoped the failings would produce not further contrition, but rather "a series of aggressively reported stories detailing the misinformation, disinformation and suspect analysis that led virtually the entire world to believe Hussein had WMD. 

"The aggressive journalism that I long for ... would reveal not just the tactics of those who promoted the WMD stories, but how the Times was used to further their cunning campaign." 

The latest act of self-flagellation has further bruised the New York Times's reputation. The newspaper is still struggling to recover from the revelation last year that a reporter, Jayson Blair, invented elements of dozens of stories. 

Source: The Guardian


Click on the following link to read the New York Times Editorial The Times and Iraq


  Category: Americas, World Affairs
  Topics: Iraq, Saddam Hussein
Views: 5790

Related Suggestions

 
COMMENTS DISCLAIMER & RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
The opinions expressed herein, through this post or comments, contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. These are offered as a means for IslamiCity to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization. The IslamiCity site may occasionally contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. IslamiCity is making such material available in its effort to advance understanding of humanitarian, education, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and such (and all) material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


Older Comments:
RASHEEDAH FROM US said:
It's amazing that they have protected Judith Miller's deceptive reporting and not fired her like they did Blair and his Manager. Of course, the journalist Blair was lambasted by all of the media for writing stories that could not be corroborated and I am in no way supporting him, however, we must remember that any significant questioning of the established wholly owned Corporate media is considered "unpatriotic"
2004-06-02

AHMED ASGHER FROM BAHRAIN said:
There is a difference between being duped (by Chalabi and Co) and not willing to see the truth for what it is. What NYT and other Zionist-controlled US media did was toe the official line since all the ditors and masters of such media are the same thugs anyway. The plan to invade Ira was hatched in a document entitled PNAC. Syria and Iran are next except Iraq has given them a little turbulance. Apart from that they are on course and heaven forbid that this lot gets elected again. Then the same war drums and WMD excuses will be written blindly by the very same papers for the leopard never changes its spot.

NYT now being gallant with such self-crticism in order to maintain its public image. Pure and simple. The proof is in the pudding. They continue to march to the drumbeat of the neocon zionists otherwise none has questioned this newly passed law that has put in place stupid sanctions against Syria, complete with a clause that threatens the use of power if Syria continues to "support terrorism". Figure it out for yourself. Anyone listening in NYT or shall we leave it to Michael Moore to make another documentary next year??

Oh, have you heard this one: Stephen Spielberg is making a movie about the plight of the Palestinians. Something like Schindler's List 2. He will have many other sequels like SL3 (Iraq) then SL4 (Afghan) SL5 (Iran) - He'll be kept very busy, poor Spielberg? Did I say poor?
2004-06-02

SUHAYB FROM CANADA said:
well yeah obviously! and it is certain that most of the other mainstream medias reported the lies knowing they had not verified anything!!! but we must admit that it is interesting to see everyone starting to run around in circles accusing eachother...
2004-06-02