| Author |
Message |
    
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 257
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 11:55 am: | 
|
Times admits flawed pre-war coverage
Reporters over-relied on Iraqi exiles' claims
By David Folkenflik
Sun Staff
May 27, 2004
The New York Times yesterday acknowledged that serious flaws marred its reporting before the invasion of Iraq last year, saying the newspaper "fell for misinformation" from a now-discredited circle of Iraqi exiles seeking the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
A note to readers, written by Executive Editor Bill Keller and Managing Editor Jill Abramson, stated that The Times reported that Hussein had intensified his efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction without adequately signaling the deep reservations of some experts. It said The Times also failed to try to verify claims of an Iraqi defector or check his veracity before printing accounts of his charges about links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaida terrorist organization.
"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," the note stated.
"Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted," it continued. "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."
The Times defended much of its overall coverage, however, saying it was accurate given the information available at the time of publication.
"That's a stunning acknowledgement," said former Times reporter Tom Goldstein, a past dean of the journalism schools at Columbia University and the University of California, Berkeley. "Readers should be extremely disappointed. But, on the other hand, people should take comfort that The Times is a self-correcting institution."
A key player
Iraqi exile leader Ahmed Chalabi, recently disowned by the U.S. government that had once embraced him, was central to many of the suspect articles. Despite widespread belief of their existence, no caches of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq by U.S.-led troops after more than a year. Claims that seemed to provide proof of pre-war links between al-Qaida and Iraq also have been hotly contested.
But both ideas were vital to the case for the invasion. And the reporting of The Times, considered the nation's most prestigious newspaper, was periodically cited by advocates of war. Some other publications, such as The Washington Post, adopted a more skeptical tone toward those claims.
Keller said in an interview yesterday that he decided that he needed to address the issue a month ago, when he found that an "urban mythology" about the influence of The Times' pre-war coverage was hindering reporters trying to examine underlying causes of the war. But he said yesterday he would not assign a team of Times journalists to further examine the issue, as the paper has done in a few other controversial cases.
Jack Shafer, editor-at-large of the online magazine Slate and a frequent critic of Iraq-related articles by Times reporter Judith Miller, called the statement a "good first step." But he said the newspaper needs to be more explicit about its mistakes.
Susan Moeller, an assistant professor of journalism at the University of Maryland, oversaw a UM study released in March that was critical of The Times for its coverage of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - especially articles by Miller, who long relied on Chalabi as a source. (The Times has used Chalabi as a source since at least 1991.) Yesterday, Moeller said Times editors had failed to address systemic problems.
"They were too close to their sources - whether government sources or defector sources," Moeller said.
By The Times' account, the false claims of the Iraqi defectors resounded in an echo chamber: They were repeatedly confirmed by Bush administration officials who were pushing for war and who had received the same information from the same dissidents. The phenomenon confused reporters who thought they were carefully vetting their articles, Keller said.
"That's a very hard thing to tease out," Keller said. "People do these amazingly complicated feats of reporting in real time."
In an additional comments online yesterday, the Times highlighted 10 questionable articles from October 2001 through May 2003. Miller wrote or shared bylines on seven of these. The Sun published four of the Times articles, which were distributed by The New York Times News Service.
'Vague and incomplete'
Howell Raines, who was Times executive editor during that period, objected to the editors' note, calling it "vague and incomplete" and saying a broader examination was warranted. In a statement on www.poynter.org, the journalism Web site, he wrote that faulty reporting did not result from a desire for scoops: "No editor did this kind of reckless rushing while I was executive editor."
The Times editors' note, remarkable for the period it encompasses, is all the more unusual because Keller had previously resisted making just such a self-examination.
In the interview, Keller said he had felt it would come too soon after the traumatic Jayson Blair scandal last spring, in which the former Times reporter was found to have plagiarized and fabricated elements of dozens of articles. Keller also said he was repelled by a "lynch-mob mentality" gripping Miller's critics. Keller, who was a senior columnist during the time under dispute (he was named executive editor last July), defended Miller, calling her an "extraordinary reporter," and said the newspaper's failings occurred as an institution.
Miller could not be reached for comment.
Copyright © 2004, The Baltimore Sun
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 487
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 12:38 am: |
|
The New York Times is very close to becoming the laughing stock of the fourth estate. They are steady losing their credibility! |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 140
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 07:29 am: |
|
Chris, Cyn,
Come on now! Even though I'm young, even I know that ALL news is skewed and inaccurate. What newspaper or news program reports anything accurately in this country (or any other country for that matter) all the time? Especially the big stories. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 240
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 09:53 am: |
|
Chris,
I have A LOT to say about this article. But, because I am unsure of your reasoning for posting this article, I suspect if I go with my immediate inclination, my responses might unfairly lead the discussion into a direction that is incongruent with where you intend to go. So, in an attempt to respect your intentions for posting this, I ask you to give YOUR opinions first. I then will, as best I can, appropriately respond to your views.
THEN...I will tell you what I think this article is REALLY all about.
A_womon,
EXCELLENT point! And I'll likely expand upon your sage comments after Chris has clarified WHY he elected to post this article. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 488
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 11:44 am: |
|
A-womon, yes, the editorial positions of newspapers are indeed skewered and partisian, but when a reporter lies and tampers with facts, then this reflects on the newspaper's credibility. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 259
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 12:31 pm: |
|
A-womon:
Thousands of people have died behind this article. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been thrown down a rathole with more to go that is coming out of your and my pocket. You, and your children, and maybe your grandchildren will be paying for this, with your money, your personal freedom, possibly with your lives and physcial well being behind this.
This wasn't some actress lying about her age or some used car salesman making a fatuous claim. This was possibly the start of WWIII.
Abm:
You can lead the discussion anyway you want to go--the reason why I posted this article is because people got bent out of shape about Jayson Blair--oh, his lies were the end of all black people and western civilization. Well, here are some lies that might actually lead to the end of western civilization. I want to see how the same folks come out on this one. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 243
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Cynique,
I support your views/concerns about journalistic integrity. But is THAT the issue that is being proffered in the article above? Because, maybe I am blind, but I can't clearly see where THAT has been suggested.
And, to my recollection, the NYT editorial staff is considered to be ardently "LIBERAL" in its politics (to know that, all you have to do is listen to the 'Rush Limbaugh' crowd any day of the week). So why would the NYT 'willfully' assert opinions that supported a war effort that was being promulgated by a "CONSERVATIVE" White House, unless the reporters/editors had at least some legitimate reasons for believing what they elected to report?
Again, after I get Chris take on this, I will explain what this article is REALLY all about. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 491
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 01:30 pm: |
|
Abm: Are you talkin to me? I just made a general observation about how tarnished the NY Times reputation has become because of shoddy reporting. I think Chrishayden did an adequate job of putting Jayson Bair's misstep in perspective when compared to the NY Times' latest monumental gaffe. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 260
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 01:44 pm: |
|
Abm:
I already said it--unless you are talking about the Pro Israeli bias of the NYT. |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 143
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 01:48 pm: |
|
Chris,
Are you saying that our government officials plunged us into world war III behind what was written in a newspaper article? If that is what you are saying, I can't agree with that.
Republicans are notorious for being warmongers because it creates subterfuge for those big bank good ole boys to line their pockets and the pockets of their friends with the benjamins!! Who is over there right now making money off of the "rebuilding" of Iraq? Why its none other than the good ole boys from down south! And where is our "fearless leader" from? No this war was in the making a long time ago. For much more insidious reasons than an article in a newspaper.
But don't get me started on that. Trust and believe I have done a lot of reading On "the New World Order" as well as "The Global Economy" and who is going to benefit most from this system.
Can you think of a time when any rich person suffered because our country went to war? NO! Their kids are not the ones sent over there to die. They have the money to make sure their interests are protected on every front. So to me they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 492
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 02:59 pm: |
|
The situation in Iraq goes beyond the Republicans and Democrats. It is really a religious war. The goal of these Arabs is to destroy western civilzation and restore Islam to its glorious past. George Bush and his fascistic cadre have opened up a can of worms with their preemptive strike and they will pay the price down the line. BTW George Bush tries to pass himself off as a good ol Texas boy, but he was born in Connecticut and belongs to a family whose privilege and wealth make it a member of America's aristocracy. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 245
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 03:37 pm: |
|
Chris,
Thanks for responding. I have been chomping at the bit for this one ever since I first noticed it.
First, that Baltimore Sun ("Sun") article (and I use the term "article" VERY lightly) you posted is complete and utter bull-‘youknowwhat’. It was written for ONE reason only...to smear its superior eastcoast rival the New York Times ("NYT" or "Times"). There is nothing about it or within it of any substantive worth. And it is so froth with fallacies/omissions, that it causes me to question the general competence and intentions of the Sun’s editorial staff itself.
Oh My, where do I begin...?
First, answer this question: If Iraqi was a closed society prior to the war (for over 12 years, there’s been NO sanctioned diplomatic relations with the US), then WHO are going to be more credible sources of info about Iraq than its natives? And how can you vouch and/or disprove their assertions if you have NO access to other equally credible sources of info?
Add to that, a White House, Congress and Britain SCREAMING so loudly that "the enemy is at the gate" that at least 1/2 of the witless American citizenry are soiling our pants. And even the sainted Colin Powell, arguably the most honored human being on Earth this side of Nelson Mandela and the Pope, sternly performs an eloquently detailed electric lightshow before the United Nation of alleged stockpiles of Sarin gas, Small Pox and depleted URANIUM canisters (For Christ Sake!).
And the NYT published stories that were alleged congruent with ALL of that.
So, yeah, the mighty NYT took one up her skirt: She used some sources that apparently proved to be incredible. As suggested by A_womon, even the august NYT isn’t above possibly being snookered by a shyster, especially when even the US and Britain was backing that alleged shyster 100%.
Now, this Sun "article" routinely refers to NYT polemics, some of who once worked for the NYT, to make its argument. Hmmmm? Well, GEE, let me see. Do you think FORMER staffers of the NYT might have a very BIASED axe-to-grind against their erstwhile employer (who, BTW, is jealously regarded as pinnacle of the journalistic profession)? Do one have to even answer that question?
I doubt that it is mere coincidence that its author says the NYT is "...considered the nation's most prestigious newspaper...". Inner thoughts of NYT’s critics in the Sun article: "SEE! If those SOB’s had hired me (or "promoted me" or "retained me"), I wouldn’t be out to try to nail ‘em." Or "SEE! I told yall the NYT ain’t ALL DAT. Or "SEE! If they are so @#$%ing great, why did they make those kinds of mistakes. Or "SEE how smart I am for pointing out NYT’s mistakes." Or SEE! I told you they are just as mediocre as we are."
And where were all of these prescient critics of the NYT 15 months ago?
Really, this is mostly about the Sun trying toss mud on the dress of a prettier girl.
And what most amaze about this article was it was published as if it were a news story when it really is nothing of the sort. It is replete with views/opinions yet offers ZERO support for the Time’s allege offenses. It does not even cite or quote ONE article written/published by the NYT that is untoward. So HOW can a reasonable person make ANY assessment of the NYT’s screw-up...when Sun refuses to clearly present what they ARE?
I might inclined to at least consider the Sun’s views that the NYT included some embellishments and hyperbole in it’s reporting. But how can I even make THAT assumption...without actually SEEING what the Times wrote?
Boy, you know, I hope the Sun publishes on a very soft grade of paper. Because if this is endemic of their journalistic quality, there’s really only one ‘place’ I might be inclined to use the results of their work.
In a way, the Sun editors are being as irresponsible as they accuse the NYT of being. Because they are using a lot of sophistry and groundless innuendo to essentially infer that the NYT is partly responsible for our being at war. And they are doing this just to score some points on its superior eastcoast rival, and without providing an IOTA of evidence.
Ask yourself this question: How do we Americans benefits from the Baltimore Sun using biased opinions to smear the New York Times?
JAYSON BLAIR
You know, whenever you all bring up that @#$%er’s name, I can’t help but hear that DMX song "Yall Gone Make Me Lose My Mind!...Up in Here!...Up in Here!" ringing in my head. This ain’t got NOTHING to do with that wheezely @#$%er.
Ok, the Time ‘may’ have missed something in their fact-checking process (and even that assumes there were ANY other available ‘facts’ to check). It happens. It’s good that they copped to. And it’s not like what they had before them could have helped PRE-EMPTED the war. So really, what’s the diff.
But THAT guy made stories up out of the thin air, lied about doing that, when he was caught, proceeded to @#$ch/moan about how his being young/Black led to his demise (Gee! I wonder how many Black journalists are having their resumes and job apps ‘reviewed’ and are having to pi$$ in cups at the NYT now.), asserted that his incompetence were legitimate excuses for him to get ‘high’ - even while on the job, got others who looked out for him debased/fired (including another Black man who fought/clawed to the very top of his profession at the nation’s flagship newspaper and BTW: It’s funny how in the rush to defend the pantsy@$$ Blair, we NEVER even MENTION that brother) and then he even has the rank audacity to try to score cash from lecturing and writing books about his fallacious deeds.
Honestly, I am confounded that there are Black journalists chasing after that @#$%er with torches and pitchforks.
You know what, I REALLY should leave this Blair thing alone. Because he make me think about things I witnessed/did during my childhood that I would rather forget. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 246
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 03:41 pm: |
|
Cynique,
I was simply saying that I don't think the article offer ANYTHING that supported your statements that the NYT is or permits "...skewered and partisian, but when a reporter lies and tampers with facts, then this reflects on the newspaper's credibility..." I am not discounting the possibility of there being elements of such within the NYT ...I just don't find any credible proof of that among the Sun's article. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 247
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 04:07 pm: |
|
A_womon,
I agree with you about the NYT having ZERO impact on our going to war. Moreover, because of limited access to Iraq/Iraqis, it is wholly unlikely that the NYT could have garnered credible rebuts of the war prior to it's initiation.
However, I disagree somewhat about your views about rich guys not fighting in wars. Because, actually, in prior eras, the aristocratic classes often led the charge in battle. Yes, they often enjoyed the preferred/choice command/officer positions in armed conflicts. But, when the dominion of their kingdoms/countries were at risk, the Dukes, Lords, Marquis, etc. had to represent the standards of their respective parts in the ruling order. And that even often meant that they themselves were required to fight, bleed and even die on a battlefield.
And to put an American face on it: Pres. Teddy Roosevelt was acclaimed warrior during the Spanish-American War (and a member of the famed/feared Cavalry called "Rough Riders"). Pres. George Bush, Sr. was a fighter pilot in WWII and was shot down in battle. Pres. JFK fought heroically in WWII as well (and his elder brother Joseph Jr. was killed during WWII while trying to prove himself to be as valliant as his younger brother).
In fact, there was a time in America where you must have at some point been a soldier to be considered worthy of being a leader.
Vietnam is what changed the dynamic of who goes to war. 'Nam, especially what happened to the Vets when they returned, has so obfuscated the issue of WHY we go to war that those who have a chance to get out it...the rich...will avoid the trouble. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 393
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 04:23 pm: |
|
Cynique: hmmmm...since most of these arabic countries are politically heterogenious, i would say that although they are muslim, not all are interested in spreading their religion, many internally, usually the powerless and masses, are primarily interest in having viable jobs, food to eat, etc...the basic necessities of life, but more importantly self-determination. Mixed in this situation is the US' greed for oil consumer base(Mc Donalds and Pepsi and Coke, etc...), through creating a particular governmental structure. SImilarly, those who have been outed for misinformation were primarily interested in control, but not necessarily for the betterment of Iraqis. In other words, they would have another tyrant, but one friendlier than the past....this is what occured during much of the Cold War, nicaragua, iran/contra, etc...
ABM: concerning your engagement with Cynique about the NYT being liberal...it seems to me that while they are liberal, they also want to maintain a pro-americanist position, so the time's behavior is quite similar to Kerry's. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 495
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 08:09 pm: |
|
Abm, I can't believe that you believe the editorial pages of any large newspaper are not skewered and paritisan. That's why they are called editorial pages because they editors express a certain point of view about any given subject. Editorializing is not hard news! |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 496
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 08:26 pm: |
|
Yukio, the mission of the Arab terrorists is very much grounded in their religion. Furthermore, politics make strange bed-fellows. A lot of opposing factions are already forming alliances in Iraq. When a common enemy threatens, groups very often focus on their similarities instead of their differences. In the battle for world dominance, it will eventually come down to Western civilization against Eastern civilization, - Christianity against Islam, and the seeds are now being sown for this confrontation. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 394
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 08:34 pm: |
|
cynique, I'm not disagreeing completely with you. Instead, I'm suggesting that these terrorists and their politico cohorts are the powerful, but still minorities among a varieties of groups. Hence, much of their power is temporary; their similarities are often obfuscated by their inability to clothe, employ, and feed eachother; and that the US will join which ever cohort is favorable to their particular political and economic interests. COnsequently, rather than it be a christian against islamic war...it will always be a war of politics rather than religion, for the US has made it clear that it is not against muslims. Similarly, other muslim countries as well as those within the US have made it clear that they don't identify with the terrorists attacks, politics, and form of religious expression. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 498
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 08:48 pm: |
|
I hope you are right about this not evolving into a knock-down-drag-out holy war, Yukio, because with white folks in the world minority, America might lose. And if Chrstian white America loses, so does black America. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 262
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 11:12 am: |
|
Abm:
Come off it, man. You are reaching for straws. There is no defense. The whole thing was a damn crock. There is absolutely no defense for it and absolutely no defense for the press, which is supposed to be laying out the facts and examining them just taking what is spoonfed to them and beating the drumbeats to war.
The most powerful country in the world and the most learned citizens in the world are not supposed to act on hysteria.
And if you think that the Jayson Blair affair was just as bad as this, you lack a sense of proportion. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 265
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 11:39 am: |
|
Abm:
These terror alerts really get to you, don't they? |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 254
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 08:01 pm: |
|
Chris,
I repeat: We don't even know what the NYT reported. Well, at least I don't. So it is difficult for me to blame them for anything.
Hey, the way I see, if the Times qualified their statements about alleged WMD with something to the effect of "These statements are per the opinions of Chalabi, a former rival of Iraqi President Sadaam Hussein. We are not at this time able to validate Chalabi's claims.", in my eyes, the NYT would be pretty much in the clear.
And again, the Times did NOT get us in this Iraq fiasco. Bush/Cheney did.
As I said before, I should probably leave Blair alone. Because, although I am normally a peace-loving guy, he's such a wheezily MOFO, he makes a brothah want to whip out a can of whip@$$.
Man, I NEVER even think about Terror Alerts. Because the way I see it, if they couldn't predict what happened on 9/11, they sure-as-hell don't know what's going to happen next. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 403
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 10:33 pm: |
|
yeah...i don't see it becoming a religious war...too many players whose politics and economic interests that are muslim...besides it one takes a close look at US foreign policy since the SPanish, AMerican, PuertoRican, Cuban, and Filipino War...you can see how the US, especially during the COld War, cooperated out of economic and political interests...consequently, bin laden and others have were once the friends of the US... |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 276
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 12:19 pm: |
|
I don't know if I see it as primarily a religious war. I do, however, I suspect that religion is being used as a potent tool, on all side of this struggle, to effect a strategic worldwide agenda.
Basically: The West (primarily White guys) are trying to garner dominion of the planet because it feels it has produced the superior scientific/commercial/education apparati and some in the Arab world are resisting that worldview. |
|
Email This Page