When on May 26 the editors of the New York Times published a mea culpa for the paper's one-sided reporting on weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq war, they admitted to "a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been". They also commented that they had since come to "wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining claims" made by the administration of US President George W Bush.
But we are still left to wonder why the Times, like many other major media in this country, was so lacking in skepticism toward administration rationales for war. How could such a poorly thought-through policy, based on spurious exile intelligence sources, have been so blithely accepted, even embraced, by so many members of the media? In short, what happened to the press's vaunted role, so carefully spelled out by the Founding Fathers of the United States, as a skeptical "watchdog" over government?
There's nothing like seeing a well-oiled machine clank to a halt to help you spot problems. Now that the Bush administration is in full defensive mode and angry leakers in the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and elsewhere in the Washington bureaucracy are slipping documents, secrets, and charges to reporters, our press looks more recognizably journalistic. But that shouldn't stop us from asking how an "independent" press in a "free" country could have been so paralyzed for so long. It not only failed to investigate administration rationales for war seriously, but little took into account the myriad voices in the online, alternative, and world press that sought to do so.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FG16Aa01.html