N.Y. Times apology feels hollow

[struggle4progress]

The New York Times has publicly acknowledged errors in its reporting on Iraq. Less an apology and more an attempt to cover journalistic humiliation, the editors confess: "Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge." (Editorial, May 26.)
While one wants to celebrate the historically momentous occasion of the "newspaper of record" admitting its lack of rigour and careful scrutiny of sources, for many this "apology" feels empty and hollow. Too little, too late. Too many people dead. Too many hungry. Too many orphans and too many mass graves. Too much ink wasted and airtime purchased to ensure the Bush administration's horrific and never justified invasion of Iraq.
<snip>

The N.Y. Times and dozens of other media underreported the millions of anti-war protesters in the U.S. and internationally who took to the streets month after month to oppose this invasion. In fact, NPR and the N.Y. Times corrected their numbers on the count of war protesters in 2002. Meanwhile, they did correctly report President George Bush stating that he doesn't attend to these protesters because that would be like basing "public policy on a focus group."
<snip>

Meanwhile, though one might like to celebrate the N.Y. Times admission of error as a positive historical turning point in the management of media institutions, it is almost impossible to swallow this "apology" and not sniff something rotten. What really tipped the balance, and will we ever know? How can one not suspect that the prison abuse scandal, the call for Donald Rumsfeld to be fired, and Bush's plummeting public favour aren't reason for the Times to jockey into a new political liaison? To gain face and realign with new elite sources come the next presidency -- corruption and cowardice with a different but gaunter face.
<snip>

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=1183