NYT: We should have been more skeptical

[torifile]

I've never seen anything like this before. The NYT has publicly posted an article critiquing their own coverage of the Iraq situation - from the beginning of it all. They said that they were looking for scoops and not being rigorous enough in their fact checking. They also apologized for not placing more prominently follow-up articles that contradicted earlier ones. Amazing. They even posted a list of the articles they're talking about for people to compare.

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/middleeast/20040526CRITIQUE.html)

Complete article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html).

A ploy to get more readers or a genuine apology?

[SKMDC]

it looks like a little umbrella from the shit-rain that's going to come down on the administration, and all the news gathering services that danced to their tune.
they seem to be disavowing themselves from the chalabi sources that the administration was spoon feeding everyone in the past.
this is interesting to say the least, considering the grey lady's last few years.

[curiousuburb]

Interesting.

Nice to see the clear contrast between 'claim' and 'retraction' as to page placement, and even better to hear the paper provide a mea culpa in recognition of places they could and should have done a better job.

It is far better to hear this kind of introspection than not... makes you wonder at the lack of critical self-reflection in other media sources, not to mention the administration itself. Admitting the problem is usually step one towards correcting it.

Now if only the political desk would admit the same lack of skeptical fact-checking. Spin and unsubstantiated facts (with later corrections buried) were well documented with regard to the candidate's claims and actual record in 2000, but I recall plenty of bewilderment at the free pass GWB seemed to get from an uncritical press.

Journalists should vet sources and triple-check the veracity of arguments, including potential conflict of interest or ulterior motives.
Editors should place accuracy and independent confirmation (as if a scientific peer review process) above 'scoop' as their primary responsibility.

Credibility is helped by these behaviours, and perhaps the Times is setting up an intentional contrast with competing media sources by staking this ground and forcing others to call or raise if they want to play at the same table.

[SonOfSylvanus]

What is the political orientation of the NYT?

[Moogs]

It's fairly moderate overall. Depends on the issue; on social stuff they tend to be fairly liberal, with business and economics they are moderate to right, and their editorialists are generally left-leaning. Politically I guess that makes them as moderate as a modern paper is likely to be in a big city.

Regarding this article, it is both disheartening to know that they were unintentionally leading people astray at times, and encouraging to know that their recent efforts to police themselves are paying off. They've also brought on a fellow who, every month or so writes lengthy editorials about the editors themselves and how they do their jobs... surely not a popular thing internally. So I think the Times, while not perfect, is showing some real professionalism here.

I doubt you'll see many other big name papers do this, even though they surely are guilty of the same kinds of error in judgement with regards to Iraq in paritcular. They all live and die for the good scoop, but lets see who can admit they let the drive for scoopage overshadow their fact-checking at times.

[torifile]

I've never been a big reader of the NYT because it seems so full of itself. I'll read it online but I generally avoid the print version of it. I may actually pick up a subscription to the real paper just because of this. What we need in the media is integrity and they are showing at least a modicum of it. Good for them.

[SKMDC]

well, they don't have no funny pages! :)

[dmz]

I thought jason what's-his-butt's assement of the NYT culture: not condusive to sobriety.