The Times is looking back to scrutinize their pre-war coverage and has found that--surprise--they were lazy and duped by the rush-to-invasion proponents. But their general self-criticism sounds to me like it could apply to all major press on most any issue:
"Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all."If this begins a trendy self-evaluation by outlets across the country, then it will be an especially good thing. Is that even possible?
No comments:
Post a Comment