Jul 5, 2004
The editors of the New York Times issued an apology over their coverage on Iraq. They acknowledged that much of what they had reported before the war – particularly about the supposed threat of nuclear and chemical weapons programs, as well as links between al Qaida and Iraq – was untrue.
The Times – which styles itself the nation's newspaper "of record" – said it was misled by "misinformation" coming from "a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on 'regime change' in Iraq." But, said the editors, so was the Bush administration "taken in" by those people.
What reason does the Times give for not carefully checking out this "misinformation"? Simply that "editors...were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper."
What kind of scoop is it to print the same lies that all the rest of the media were putting out? If the Times wanted scoops, they could have printed the truth!
No, their interest for drumming up a justification for the invasion of Iraq was the same as all the other media: The New York Times Company is a large media corporation, with ties to a lot of other large corporations. Its directors also sit on the Boards of PepsiCo, Ford Motor Company, Alcoa, Johnson & Johnson, Lucent Technologies and Nextel, among others. They have an interest in seeing the U.S. flex its muscle around the world – so that all these corporations can make big profits all around the world.
In its apology, the Times admitted to reporting lies.
But what was it doing when it said that Bush was fooled by these lies, as if he hadn't knowingly created them?