When A Correction Isn't A Correction

I was planning to write on the recent New York Times faux "correction", but Paul has done a fine job.

The Times, like many in the media, made numerous mistakes in its coverage of Iraq. Perhaps the most (in)famous of all was the series of "Strategic Pause" stories. The stories, which ran only a few days after the start of the war, claimed that American forces were bogged down in Iraq and were forced to pause for a few weeks to regroup. "The war plan had failed" was a favorite quote of the day. Apparently the Pentagon missed the stories because just 2 weeks later, Iraqis were dancing in the streets and pulling down statues of Saddam as American tanks rolled thru Baghdad. The Times never did explain how it blew that story.

The fall of Baghdad lead to perhaps the second biggest gaff of the Iraq war reporting- that the Baghdad museum had been looted. The Times breathlessly reported that the museum had 170,000 items looted or destroyed. They also reported that the administration failed to put guards at the museum but had placed guards at the Oil Ministry's office. None of those stories were true.

Nope. What the Times decided to "correct" was its reporting on evidence of weapons of mass destruction - information provided by Iraqi defectors and the Bush Administration. In fact, it's not a correction at all, but an transparent attempt to focus blame - "They lied to us, and we fell for it. We won't let that happen again!"

In keeping with the tone and quality of the piece, they can't even get the facts straight now. Look at this;

The informant also claimed that Iraq had sent unconventional weapons to Syria and had been cooperating with al-Qaida -- two claims that were then, and remain, highly controversial. But the tone of the article suggested that this Iraqi "scientist" -- who in a later article described himself as an official of military intelligence -- had provided the justification the Americans had been seeking for the invasion.

A full year and a half into this exercise, and the editors at the New York Times still haven't heard of UN Resolution 1441, which mandated Iraq to prove it had destroyed known weapons stocks. No proof that they existed was necessary. Not a single defector, not a single spy plane photograph was required to "justify" anything. The "justification" was contained in the wording of the resolution.

That some member countries of the UN Security Council, now found to have been profiting from illegal kickback schemes in the Oil-For-Food program, refused to participate in military action, and efforts were made to demonstrate that Iraq was not only not complying, but continuing a clandestine operation, was merely tangential to that resolution.

The resolution is here.

But, hey - let's take the Times at their word. Write the ombudsman, Daniel Orkent - demand they put their money where their correction is, and fire those editors responsible.

update

Dear Ms. McMillan, Thank you for your message. Mr. Okrent will be writing about The Times's coverage of weapons of mass destruction in his column on Sunday. Sincerely, Arthur Bovino Office of the Public Editor

Posted by Kate at May 26, 2004 2:26 PM