Flawed Journalism

The editors of the New York Times recently took a hard look at the paper's reporting of the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq. They concluded that their coverage had been deficient. Numerous reports were found to be "incomplete or pointed in a wrong direction," "information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified, or allowed to stand unchallenged." "Looking back," the editors say, "we wish we had been more aggressive in reexamining the claims as new evidence emerged--or failed to emerge."

While the Times editorialized against the administration's agitation for military action, Judith Miller, one of the paper's prominent reporters, transmitted one White House exaggeration after another. Skeptics among the press corps were reminded by Condaleezza Rice that "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

The Times also fell for the claim, later discounted, that Saddam Hussein's agents were collaborating with Al Qaida. Any reporter acquainted with Islamist extremism would have seriously doubted that bin Laden would ally himself with a pseudo-Muslim dictator.

There were unverified stories of hidden weapons facilities and aluminum tubes imported to produce an atomic bomb that never materialized. After months of contradictory accounts about Iraq's armaments, the Times, in apparent exasperation, published "A Chronicle of Confusion in the Hunt for Hussein's Weapons."

After first reporting that "U.S. Analysts Link Iraq Labs to Germ Arms," the same correspondent later heard from "dissenting intelligence analysts that the trailers were not bio-weapons labs" at all, a story the Times subsequently published on the front page.

In a separate critique, the paper's public editor (an ombudsman or readers' advocate) charged that "The Times' flawed journalism continued in the weeks after the war began, when writers might have broken free from the cloaked government sources who insinuated themselves and their agendas into the prewar coverage."

Unverified news stories and commentaries about Iraq under Hussein appeared in virtually every American newspaper that depends for its foreign affairs coverage on the large Washington-based newsgathering organizations. It was they that all too often got it wrong, because their sources did not tell the truth, inadvertently or deliberately.

The Times editors attributed much of the misleading information in the media to "a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors, and exiles bent on 'regime change'." "Complicating matters for journalists," says the Times, "the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq."

Other sources of serious misinformation about Iraq were the Central Intelligence Agency and British Prime Minister Blair. The President's neo-conservative advisers eagerly repeated dubious assessments when they supported the rationales for their claim that the liberation of Iraq was urgent and would easily be accomplished in a few weeks.

Mr. Bush himself failed to provide the media with reliable information. By the beginning of this year, he had held only 11 solo press conferences, as compared to 71 given by his father at this point in his presidency. Even in his State of the Union address last year, Bush junior repeated the false report about Iraq's alleged purchase of uranium from "an African nation."

The electronic media were no less gullible, none of them less "fair and balanced" than Fox News. Arms inspector David Kay who faithfully echoed the administration's warnings of large Iraqi stores of weapons of mass destruction, received plenty of airtime by all networks. When arms inspector Scott Ritter asserted that Iraq had been effectively disarmed during the 1990s, he had to go to college campuses and peace groups to be heard.

There was no justification for America's free media to swallow so much misinformation for so many months. The editors of the New York Times rightly apologized for their temporary failure to maintain the journalistic vigilance that is so indispensable in the face of stubbornly sustained government propaganda.

Wolf D. Fuhrig	Home	06-13-04
Flawed Journalism
The editors of the New York Times recently took a hard look at the paper's reporting of the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq. They concluded that their coverage had been deficient. Numerous reports were found to be "incomplete or pointed in a wrong direction," "information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified, or allowed to stand unchallenged." "Looking back," the editors say, "we wish we had been more aggressive in reexamining the claims as new evidence emerged--or failed to emerge." While the Times editorialized against the administration's agitation for military action, Judith Miller, one of the paper's prominent reporters, transmitted one White House exaggeration after another. Skeptics among the press corps were reminded by Condaleezza Rice that "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The Times also fell for the claim, later discounted, that Saddam Hussein's agents were collaborating with Al Qaida. Any reporter acquainted with Islamist extremism would have seriously doubted that bin Laden would ally himself with a pseudo-Muslim dictator. There were unverified stories of hidden weapons facilities and aluminum tubes imported to produce an atomic bomb that never materialized. After months of contradictory accounts about Iraq's armaments, the Times, in apparent exasperation, published "A Chronicle of Confusion in the Hunt for Hussein's Weapons." After first reporting that "U.S. Analysts Link Iraq Labs to Germ Arms," the same correspondent later heard from "dissenting intelligence analysts that the trailers were not bio-weapons labs" at all, a story the Times subsequently published on the front page. In a separate critique, the paper's public editor (an ombudsman or readers' advocate) charged that "The Times' flawed journalism continued in the weeks after the war began, when writers might have broken free from the cloaked government sources who insinuated themselves and their agendas into the prewar coverage." Unverified news stories and commentaries about Iraq under Hussein appeared in virtually every American newspaper that depends for its foreign affairs coverage on the large Washington-based newsgathering organizations. It was they that all too often got it wrong, because their sources did not tell the truth, inadvertently or deliberately. The Times editors attributed much of the misleading information in the media to "a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors, and exiles bent on 'regime change'." "Complicating matters for journalists," says the Times, "the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq." Other sources of serious misinformation about Iraq were the Central Intelligence Agency and British Prime Minister Blair. The President's neo-conservative advisers eagerly repeated dubious assessments when they supported the rationales for their claim that the liberation of Iraq was urgent and would easily be accomplished in a few weeks. Mr. Bush himself failed to provide the media with reliable information. By the beginning of this year, he had held only 11 solo press conferences, as compared to 71 given by his father at this point in his presidency. Even in his State of the Union address last year, Bush junior repeated the false report about Iraq's alleged purchase of uranium from "an African nation." The electronic media were no less gullible, none of them less "fair and balanced" than Fox News. Arms inspector David Kay who faithfully echoed the administration's warnings of large Iraqi stores of weapons of mass destruction, received plenty of airtime by all networks. When arms inspector Scott Ritter asserted that Iraq had been effectively disarmed during the 1990s, he had to go to college campuses and peace groups to be heard. There was no justification for America's free media to swallow so much misinformation for so many months. The editors of the New York Times rightly apologized for their temporary failure to maintain the journalistic vigilance that is so indispensable in the face of stubbornly sustained government propaganda.

Wolf D. Fuhrig

Home

06-13-04

Flawed Journalism