NYT headline contradicts General's position on Iraq report

[ProSense]

NEW YORK TIMES DOWNPLAYS GENERAL'S AGREEMENT WITH GRIM ASSESSMENT OF IRAQ.

You're gonna love this one. Yesterday Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, the senior marine commander in Iraq, gave an interview to reporters about the confidential assessment leaked to the Washington Post which said that the likelihood of securing Iraq's western Anbar province is dim and there's little to nothing the U.S. military can do to salvage the situation.

So what did Zilmer say about this report? That depends on which newspaper you read.

Here's the headine in today's Washington Post:

General Affirms Anbar Analysis

But here's the headline in today's New York Times:

Grim Report Out of Anbar Is Disputed By General

So which is it? The Post quotes Zilmer as follows:

"I have seen that report and I do concur with that assessment," said Marine Maj. Gen. Richard C. Zilmer, speaking to reporters yesterday by telephone from his headquarters near Fallujah, Iraq. He said he found "frank and candid" the analysis by Col. Pete Devlin, the Marine intelligence chief in Iraq, who concluded that prospects for securing Anbar province are dim.

What's more, deep in the Times story, it says: "General Zilmer declined to discuss the specifics of the report, but indicated that he agreed with the intelligence assessment." Yet it sure looks as if he did a lot more than "indicate" his agreement. If the Post quoted him accurately, he said outright that he agreed. Either the Post misquoted him, or the Times headline clearly botched this one in a big way -- and the Times story downplayed the key news.

Snip...

The Times blew this one, methinks. Will the paper correct it?

[babylonsister]

1. So, did the NYT botch on purpose? That's quite a stretch; any

thinking journalist wouldn't have blown it that bad unless they had an agenda.

[ProSense]

2. One thing is certain:

Agreed isn't the same as disputed!