NY Times Ombudsman Criticizes Paper Over Iraq

[shawn703]

Institutional failures at The New York Times led to it being used in a "cunning campaign" by those who wanted the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the paper's ombudsman said on Sunday.
Daniel Okrent, who has the title "public editor," wrote in a scathing review of the paper's coverage of the weapons issue ahead of the Iraq invasion last year that The Times had been guilty of flawed journalism.


more...


http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20040529_321.html

[burrowowl]

1. Was he fired?

Ahead of the Iraq INVASION, not liberation ...

[kiahzero]

3. Ombudsmen are free to criticize the paper

In fact, that's pretty much their job.

[Warpy]

2. Cunning campaign?

Nah, all they had to do was find a couple of the lazy journalists who would rather sit on their butts and have stories fed to them and who would never think of checking out either a source or a story. Once they'd located a couple of overpaid stenographers, the rest was easy.

I'm sure the right wingers who were spreading all the crap about Clinton in the 90s knew exactly who the laziest SOBs in the newsroom were, and pointed them out.

[AP]

7. You can't blame only the reporters.

The NYT has broken only three major stories in the last 10 years: Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee and WMD. All were frauds.

How can you say this is a problem with the reporters?

Something bigger is going on here.

[kodi]

4. Institutional failures? how about liars allowing liars to lie, page 1

by calling this an institutional failure, the problem is voided?

it's not the system that is bad, no, merely that it's rules were not followed?

there was no misapplication of the system. there were no "institutional failures." the intstitution worked perfectly. it instigated a war. that is what it was supposed to do.

[Stephanie]

5. Cunning Campaign Stunt

Say that ten times, fast.

[enough]

6. "epaulets sprouting on the shoulders of editors"

snip>

Okrent blamed "the hunger for scoops," saying Times readers "encountered some rather breathless stories built on unsubstantiated 'revelations' that, in many instances, were the anonymity-cloaked assertions of people with vested interests."

He said some stories pushed the Pentagon line so aggressively "you could almost sense epaulets sprouting on the shoulders of editors."

Okrent, who was appointed in December as part of efforts to restore the paper's image following the Jayson Blair scandal, said editors needed to launch a series of "aggressively reported stories detailing the misinformation, disinformation and suspect analysis that led virtually the entire world to believe (Saddam) had WMD at his disposal."

snip>



YES, but there is still another important question that needs to be answered:
WHY was the Times doing this -- WHY were they pushing war -- WHY were they abrogating their role as journalists and operating as covert agents for the administration?

That is the story I want to see "agressively reported."

[mom cat]

15. And how did these stories get pushed to the top of the front page

while the copious news contradicting the Administration line were buried or ignored. I think that you are right. Why were they pushing the war so hard?

[Voltaire99]

8. Have they fired chief establishment stenographer Judith Miller?

No? Then they have yet to take a significant step toward reform.

The New York Times simply cannot be read with any confidence without measuring its claims against more critical journalism found in publications as various as the Guardian, the Independent, Asian Times, Harper's Magazine, the New Statesman, etc. Even a cursory reader of those outlets since 9/11 would have been equipped to see through the breathlessness and outright cheerleading of the Times' pre-war "reporting."

As for the Times' weasel words, Alexander Cockburn has the newspaper's number:

http://counterpunch.com/cockburn05282004.html

[nolabels]

9. For Shame

For Shame

What becomes of a country that loses its capacity for repulsion?

By Paul W. Schroeder

We already know the administration’s strategy for damage control on the latest erupting scandal in occupied Iraq, the abuse of Iraqi prisoners of war. The tactics have served more or less successfully, at least in America, to cover up and survive every earlier scandal and fiasco of this administration at home and abroad. President Bush has already raised his hands in holy disgust, pronouncing the actions contrary to his and the country’s principles and the Army’s policy, the work of a handful of miscreants whom Donald Rumsfeld solemnly promises to pursue and punish. We are already hearing the predictable excuses employed by defenders of corporate corruption, high-paid criminal athletes, and this administration—“This does not represent us or America and its values,” “mistakes have been made,” “no one claimed we or democracy are perfect.” A few obvious culprits will be punished, a few mid-level superiors reprimanded or demoted, dangerous questions held at bay at hearings, a commission possibly named to study the problem, administrative changes promised, and then the administration, denying involvement and responsibility, will move on to other things to distract the public.

They must not get away with this.

Not only is this episode more sickening and shameful than others that have already stained the occupation of Iraq. Not only will it have an even more shattering effect on America’s image and ability to lead abroad. Not only does it end any surviving hopes that Americans can be seen by Iraqis and other Arabs and Muslims as liberators, models, leaders, and friends. It reveals as nothing has before the true character of this venture and of the whole policy by which this administration has chosen (allegedly) to fight terrorism and evil in the world. It ought finally to force every American, even the most loyal and patriotic, to face what this country under this leadership has done and is doing in this war. Where is it leading us?
(snip)
http://amconmag.com/2004_06_07/article.html

on edit forgot the the place I got the link: http://www.antiwar.com/

[rawstory]

11. They should fire Miller

But they won't. She's a high-ranking reporter, and still does daily international dispatches.

[nolabels]

12. They should fire themselves, but that would make too much sense

I once said here on DU (learned from a quote) that if they have more than 3 people at the organization there is a good chance they will lie about more than just one thing.

Found this little one here I just about wanted to puke when I read who was saying it.

But then again everybody knows there are certain places you take a :hurts:


http://www.steveverdon.com/cgi-bin/mov/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=641
Comments: New York Times Sloppiness

Wow, this guy sounds like he's losing it. So he doesn't dispute the information in the article, yet he still has a problem, as he thinks writers in The Times will lie about things in the future because of the fact that one reporter made a general statement. Oh, yes, did I mention the fact that he doesn't dispute the information? He's not making any sense.

As for the "rag" comment, nobody besides blowhards like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity thinks of The Times in that way. There are plenty of rag-like papers out there: The New York Post, The Washington Times, and probably The New York Daily News.
Posted by Brian at October 29, 2003 01:42 PM

Wow, this guy sounds like he's losing it. So he doesn't dispute the information in the article, yet he still has a problem, as he thinks writers in The Times will lie about things in the future because of the fact that one reporter made a general statement.

No Brian, it is because one report literally made up stories out of whole cloth, stole parts of stories from other reporters, and another reporter did not give credit to some of the people helping him on stories. Not to mention Krugman's dubious use of data in his columns.

Reputations are a fragile thing. Once damaged they can take awhile to repair.

As for the "rag" comment, nobody besides blowhards like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity thinks of The Times in that way. There are plenty of rag-like papers out there: The New York Post, The Washington Times, and probably The New York Daily News.

Then why not include the sources for their claims? Give me a good reason besides, 'cause I said so.'
Posted by Steve at October 29, 2003 01:51 PM
(snip)

[maggrwaggr]

10. write the hell out of them at these addresses:

New York Times:
PAUL KRUGMAN! [e-mail]

To Write The Publisher or President:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#o

Letters to the Editor:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#a

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

E-mail to
[e-mail] .

OP-ED/EDITORIAL

For information on Op-Ed submissions, call [phone] or send article to

[e-mail] " target="_blank">[e-mail]" target="_blank">[e-mail] .

To write to the editorial page editor, send to [e-mail] .

NEWS DEPARTMENT

To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail [e-mail] or leave a message at

1-888-NYT-NEWS.

The Editors
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

The Newsroom
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]

PUBLIC EDITOR
To reach Daniel Okrent, who represents the readers, e-mail [e-mail] or call [phone].

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
[e-mail] .
Janet L. Robinson, President & General Manager:
[e-mail] .

[Algomas]

13. I feel much better now..

I emailed the above list of conspirators my opinion of their treasonous actions. I hope mine is just one of millions of responses they receive.

[maggrwaggr]

17. Good! You've put it out there.

Your intent can change the world. I'm not kidding.

[Jose Diablo]

14. The CEO of the NYT should be brought-up on sedation charges. n/t

[ldf]

16. maybe sedition?

well, actually the nyt did sedate the populace to the truth, but they manipulated the populace into war.