Was the NYTimes apology in your newspaper? If so, where did they run it?

[frank frankly]

Thanks in advance. For those who aren't aware, the NYTimes formally apologized for their Pre-War coverage of WMD/terrorism in Iraq. No mention of Judith Miller, but it is a start.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. We have examined the failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists. We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves.

In doing so — reviewing hundreds of articles written during the prelude to war and into the early stages of the occupation — we found an enormous amount of journalism that we are proud of. In most cases, what we reported was an accurate reflection of the state of our knowledge at the time, much of it painstakingly extracted from intelligence agencies that were themselves dependent on sketchy information. And where those articles included incomplete information or pointed in a wrong direction, they were later overtaken by more and stronger information. That is how news coverage normally unfolds.

But we have found 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. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.

[Th1onein]

1. Out of touch?

What was this apology all about?

[BurtWorm]

4. It's about Judith Miller's (mostly) uncritical reporting about WMD

before the war, which the Times is admitting was not rigorously vetted and which seems to have come from sources who probably knew it was false--actually who may even have been Iranian agents trying to trick the US into toppling Saddam so Iran wouldn't have to.

The note "from the editors" is on-line:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?8dpc

[IrateCitizen]

7. Why in the hell does Judith Miller still have a job!?!?

What she did is infinitely worse than what Jayson Blair did. Nobody died from Jayson Blair's lies.

And why isn't this mea culpa on the front page? After all, didn't they do all of their pimping for the war on the front page?

F***ing NY Times.... :grr:

[BurtWorm]

8. Excellent question and points.

[Snellius]

13. They don't even mention her name in their apology

Are they confessing or still trying to cover up. They blame it all on Howell Raines, who conveniently is gone.

[BurtWorm]

2. In NYC it's on A10.

It's with the other Iraq news.

[frank frankly]

6. if they didn't give it a headline, then they didn't mean it. no surprise.

headlines are the key. that was one of the "points" in their "apology."

[BurtWorm]

9. Ironic, isn't it.

They go out of their way to disguise their confession. That would be a good subject for a letter to the editor to Okrent.

[truthspeaker]

11. Interesting. A source at the NY Times told me to look for it on page 2

It was originally supposed to run on page 2 last Sunday.

[NewJeffCT]

3. what did they apologize for?

I'm curious.

[BurtWorm]

5. See post #4.

[kaitykaity]

10. Too late. 800 of our kids are dead.

4500 injured. And that's just the numbers the Bush criminals
will give us.

If the Times had done it's job, if Congress had done it's job,
and on and on and on . . . everybody failed, and this weak
naval gazing bullshit makes me sick.

[seabeyond]

12. the abuse is well woven in the story

may not be on media but it is loudly and hugely sittin there for all to see and wont go away. i also know more will be coming out and will continue to be on media. cause there isnt a picture there, doesnt mean it isnt there

[rucky]

14. And who was Miller's source on all of this? Everybody now:

AHMED CHALABAI

[cmf]

15. It was in section A, page 2, in the bottom left hand corner.

This is the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.