The New York Times apologizes for succumbing like every other American media outlet on the heels of war and not questioning the information being provided by the Bush administration.
One of the eight major trends isolated in the State of the News Media 2004 Annual Report Overview was that “[t]hose who would manipulate the press and public appear to be gaining leverage over the journalists who cover them.”
“But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.
“The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on “regime change” in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. . . . Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.
“Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. 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 sample of the coverage, including the articles mentioned here, is online at nytimes.com/critique. ”
Keep in mind too, stalwart Times, the number of online readers you have and how “archaic” notions like “burying coverage on page 23″ translates to online versions. For some papers, that means a correction might not appear online. For many browsers only looking headlines, that still means it won’t be found. Doesn’t the online newspaper world complicate things and make your journalism brain hurt?
For fair and balanced news, read widely, including sources outside your own country, if possible. (Have I talked about how much I love The Guardian lately? Yes, of course. I drone on.) Different nations at least have different agendas, if not different theories of journalism and their relationship to the nation.
Greg Dyke, former director general of the BBC: “As broadcast journalists in the UK, we are still surprised when we see some of the attitudes the US networks have to covering the war. When we read that some network executives say that their coverage should be influenced by ‘patriotic duty,’ we are surprised. We are genuinely shocked when we discover that the largest radio group in the US was using its airwaves to organise pro-war rallies.
“American television is now so fragmented there are no 800lb gorillas around as there was when CBS, ABC and NBC dominated. The effect of this fragmentation is to make government, the White House and the Pentagon all-powerful, with no news operation strong enough or brave enough to stand up to them. This is particularly so since 11 September when many US networks wrapped themselves in the flag and swapped impartiality for patriotism.
“Commercial pressures may tempt others to follow the Fox News formula of gung-ho patriotism, but for the BBC this would be a terrible mistake. If we lose the trust of our audiences, there is no point in the BBC. If Iraq proved anything, it was that the BBC cannot afford to mix patriotism and journalism.”
When I heard him tell the same ideas to Bill Moyer, my heart lifted at the possibility of the possibility a major news organization that doubted like I did, like many did, what Co-Presidents Bush and Cheney tried to lead the nation to believe about Iraq. The war’s about terrorism because they’re Al-Quada! Well, they have ties to Al-Quada. Oh, you don’t buy that? Well, um, they were building their own weapons of mass destruction. We’ll cooperate with other countries starting . . . NOW! And ending . . . NOW! Okay, you’re either with us, or against us. Where’s the damn weapons? Keep looking! Um, we’re doing this to liberate them! (It’s a shame converting them all to Christianity won’t win California or New York; sure, it’d play well in Mid-America, but we already got them with banning gay marriage.) Prison abuse? Oh, hide those. Put those with the weapons of mass destruction and Osama Bin Laden so we can stragetically release those some other time. We’ll Photoshop in someone else’s face . . .
What, my polls are down to 41%? Release that note about attacks in the summer. At least then they can’t say I didn’t know about it.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.