Monday, May 31, 2004
Media Self-Flagellation
The New York Times recently responded to liberal and international criticism of media coverage that supposedly allowed the Administration to take the country to war with Iraq on the basis of evidence that Saddam had stockpiled and was ready to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It did a special editorial and then later a special ombudsman column admitting the error of their ways. Their point was that they had carelessly allowed claims for the existence of WMD in Iraq and claims of pre-war contacts with al-Qaida to enter their pages without making clear that their sources were in the Administration and that the evidence had not been independently checked. Unfortunately, in making this mea culpa the Times has done more to undermine its credibility than to restore it. It is saying, in effect: "We had a point of view, reported from this point of view; now we have another point of view, now we need to expunge the paper trail that represents our former position."
As a careful reader of the Times, I was never convinced by reports in the Times before or after our invasion that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Some reports from administration sources said they did, but it was clear what the sources were. Other reports and commentary in the Times pointed out the likelihood that "evidence" of Iraqi WMD or cooperation with al-Qaida was manufactured in whole or in part by persons in government or in the Iraqi exile community that wanted the United States to intervene. The Times did not lead me astray. Instead, I was glad that its pages contained both accounts reporting the evidence supporting Administration views and accounts casting doubt on this evidence. I was allowed to choose. I hope I always have that opportunity.
This is, of course, a larger problem than the Times and its internal and external critics. The accusation is now general a general one against the American media, an accusation that simply does not accord with my experience.
The New York Times recently responded to liberal and international criticism of media coverage that supposedly allowed the Administration to take the country to war with Iraq on the basis of evidence that Saddam had stockpiled and was ready to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It did a special editorial and then later a special ombudsman column admitting the error of their ways. Their point was that they had carelessly allowed claims for the existence of WMD in Iraq and claims of pre-war contacts with al-Qaida to enter their pages without making clear that their sources were in the Administration and that the evidence had not been independently checked. Unfortunately, in making this mea culpa the Times has done more to undermine its credibility than to restore it. It is saying, in effect: "We had a point of view, reported from this point of view; now we have another point of view, now we need to expunge the paper trail that represents our former position."
As a careful reader of the Times, I was never convinced by reports in the Times before or after our invasion that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Some reports from administration sources said they did, but it was clear what the sources were. Other reports and commentary in the Times pointed out the likelihood that "evidence" of Iraqi WMD or cooperation with al-Qaida was manufactured in whole or in part by persons in government or in the Iraqi exile community that wanted the United States to intervene. The Times did not lead me astray. Instead, I was glad that its pages contained both accounts reporting the evidence supporting Administration views and accounts casting doubt on this evidence. I was allowed to choose. I hope I always have that opportunity.
This is, of course, a larger problem than the Times and its internal and external critics. The accusation is now general a general one against the American media, an accusation that simply does not accord with my experience.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
