earthmann

The New York Times > International > Middle East >The New York Times begins the long process of explaining their atrocious march-to-war coverage. There were so many discrepcancies between the official Iraq line and numerous solid sources, a casual reader of foreign newspapers could have told you that the NYT should exchange their black ink for some brown, as 99 percernt of their front page coverage was but d.c.p.r.b.s.

"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"

Note to Times: Yes, you must corraborate government sources. I know it makes your job a little more difficult, and your operation a little more expensive, but, hey, that's the price of writing history.