New York Times bedauert ihre anfänglichen Irak-Berichte
--- Die New York Times bedauert, dass sie im Vorfeld des Irak-Kriegs "irrtümlicherweise" auf den Hype der Bush-Regierung rund um die vermeintlichen Massenvernichtungswaffen Saddam Husseins reingefallen ist (mehr dazu im Spindoktor-Buch). Die LA Times berichtet über das Eingeständnis: The New York Times published a self-critical note to its readers late Tuesday, in effect apologizing for the paper's sometimes erroneous reporting on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq both before the United States and coalition countries invaded in March 2003 and during the early days of the occupation. The mea culpa first appeared on the paper's website, and is in today's editions. The unusual note, which includes a pledge to "continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight," follows months of criticism. Readers, other journalists and some antiwar politicians have argued that the paper's numerous stories suggesting that Saddam Hussein may have constructed a large weapons of mass destruction program helped bolster the Bush administration's argument for going to war. No such weapons have been found. "Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq," the note begins. " … We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves." ... "we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been," the note continues. "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." Many of the problematic articles "shared a common feature," the note says. "They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on 'regime change' in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks." The best-known of those sources is Ahmad Chalabi, who the paper says had been a source since 1991. Mehr dazu auch in Telepolis.