Times acknowledges Iraq coverage flaws
Note from editors answers questions about reporting
The New York Times acknowledged in an extraordinary note to readers yesterday that its reporting on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism was too dependent on unverified claims, by sources of questionable credibility.
The note cited stories from 2001, 2002, and early 2003 -- most of them written or co-written by Judith Miller -- that dealt with the threat that Saddam Hussein's regime posed to the United States at a time when the Bush administration was using the threat in justifying its march toward war.
The articles contained reports that Iraq had secret biological and chemical weapons programs, was home to terrorist training camps, and was seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
Concerns about the Times's reporting on Iraq have percolated for the past year, with media critics such as The
The Times note, authored by the executive editor, Bill Keller, referred to "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. . . . The problematic articles . . . 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."
One prominent source cited in the note was Ahmed Chalabi, the former US ally and Iraqi National Congress leader who has fallen out of favor and whose home was raided last week by US and Iraqi forces. The note, however, did not mention Miller by name or single out any reporter or editor for blame, saying "the problem was more complicated." In explaining why the Times took the dramatic step of publicly critiquing its coverage, Keller said in an interview: "Essentially, it has become a distraction that just wouldn't go away. We just needed to kind of clear the air."
"I don't see this as an apology," he said. "I see this as an explanation. It's not a note that's going to satisfy our most bloodthirsty critics."
Reaction to the Times admission was mixed yesterday among media professionals. (The
Newspaper analyst John Morton said the Times's self-examination reflected its editorial integrity. "If anything, having this kind of mea culpa reinforces the Times' image, just as they handled the Jayson Blair case," he said, referring to the reporter who resigned amid revelations that he plagiarized and fabricated stories.
Shafer called it a "fine mini-culpa."
Michael Hoyt, executive editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, said the episode could damage the Times's credibility. "It's a big deal that they came clean," he said, "but . . . I think it's a bigger deal than Jayson Blair, because it involved a rationale for war."
Yesterday's note will not be the last word on the topic to appear in the Times. Okrent said yesterday that his Sunday column will address the subject. Keller acknowledged that Okrent's work may have affected the timing of the note. "Once we knew he was working on it, it was clearly better to say what we were going to say before rather than after," he said.
The decision to deal with the subject in print reflects a change of heart on the part of the public editor and the executive editor. In his March posting, Okrent told readers that he had decided not to address "issues that arose before my tenure began." That entry also contained a message from Keller -- who became executive editor last July after his predecessor, Howell Raines, resigned after the Blair scandal -- in which he said: "I did not see a prima facie case for recanting or repudiating the stories." He defended Miller as a "smart, well-sourced, industrious, and fearless reporter."
Keller said the earlier decision not to examine the coverage was based in part on a view that "the paper had spent a lot of time and energy looking backward and inward, and it was time to move on."
"There may be a small lynch mob of people who want to see someone strung up," he added. "I don't think that's what readers want. They want to know what happened."
Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, attributed the disclosure to a Times culture that is more aware of credibility problems. "In the post-Blair era, they are a lot more sensitive to those questions and issues," he said.
