NY Times apologises for printing false stories

[Vanhalen 0]

THE New York Times - considered America's most influential paper - said sorry yesterday for misleading readers about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

 

It confessed the US Government urged it to carry unfounded claims - often on its front page - about Saddam's arms to justify the war.

 

When some reporters discovered they were false, their stories were buried elsewhere in the paper.

 

Yesterday's editorial admitted coverage "was not as rigorous as it should have been". Under the headline "The Times and Iraq", it added: "We wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged - or failed to emerge."

 

Many of the bogus WMD stories came from discredited Iraqi dissident Ahmad Chalabi and fellow exiles he introduced to reporters.

 

The paper said: "The accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq.

 

"Officials now acknowledge they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organisations, in particular this one."

 

America paid Chalabi for intelligence information that has often proved false.

 

Last week Iraqi and US officers raided Chalabi's Baghdad offices. The Times' apology mentioned five stories written between 2001 and 2003 - many by reporter Judith Miller.

 

But writers were often not quizzed enough about their stories as editors wanted scoops. The paper, nicknamed The Gray Lady, has a colourful recent past with inventive reporting.

 

Last year writer Jayson Blair was sacked amid a huge scandal for making up other stories.

 

Now bosses vow that correcting their mistakes over Iraq is "unfinished business... we fully intend to continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight".

 

The paper's more sceptical approach could be a problem for Bush as America heads for elections.

[edotherocket 0]

This newspaper got in trouble last year because some guy got sacked for making up news stories and they're still considered the most influential newspaper in America?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

And the Times was considered pro-administration before? Oy.

 

EDIT:

This newspaper got in trouble last year because some guy got sacked for making up news stories and they're still considered the most influential newspaper in America?

 

In name only, and in Academic/elitest circles. I wouldn't wipe my ass with this rag...

[Vanhalen 0]

Hey I dont know, I dont read the NY Times lol, but it does seem kinda weird shit going on between the media and Bush administration in your country.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

That's because the NYT is highly political.

The media here want ratings and power...not good news coverage.

 

From someone who knows...newspapers have been on the decline since the 1980s. There are much more important news sources today than these shreds of paper.

 

That's why they, you know, keep failing!