This self-examination was provoked by three events. The United States Government rebuke of Ahmad Chalabi probably plays the most significant role. The Times admits that some if its reporters relied heavily on information provided by Chalabi, as did the U.S. government. If Chalabi's information was wrong it stands to reason that the reporting would also be wrong if it relied heavily on his claims. The second factor leading to the Times' mia culpa has been the lack factual data substantiating many of the claims. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. Iraqi's on a whole have not showered American troops with flowers and cheered the liberation. Iraqis by a large margin consider the Americans as occupiers rather than liberators. Leading up to the war, this outcome was rarely discussed. Finally, the evidence of prison abuse reveals that this war, like every other war, is neither sterile, nor humane. Americans are proving to be little different from any other conquering army.

On closer examination, the Times' introspection details a lot more than the media has admitted so far.

"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." May 26, 2004, The New York Times, "The Times and Iraq" - From the Editors.


This self-examination fails to ask the primary question. Why was the American media so willing to accept the government view of the issue? They knew very well where they were getting their information. The information was coming from the United States government and the same sources that were feeding government intelligence agencies. Report after report parroting the government perspective was printed in the lead up to the war; not just by the Times, but by most "mainstream" media sources in America. The reports were confirmed by sources but these sources were neither objective, nor independent. This is reporting. It is hardly journalism.

In media outlets throughout the world the evidentiary basis for the war was seriously questioned. European media sources found little to substantiate the claims made by the American government. Their reporting swayed public after public to oppose the war. Their reporting has also been shown to have been more accurate. The British media seriously questioned both the justification and reasoning behind its government's support for the war. The Spanish media did the same as did nearly every other country whose government participated in the coalition to topple Saddam. Opinion polls in every country whose government sent troops showed the public to be opposed to the war. Only in America was the public so poorly informed. Only in America did a majority of the public believe Saddam possessed WMD's. Only in America did a majority believe a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Since none of these facts have proven accurate, only in America did the media fail to do its job.

The reasons for this range from the patriotic (9/11 left the media unwilling to challenge the government) to conspiratorial (the business of news is not profitable if it is not supportive of America). Whatever the reasons might be, it has become painfully clear that the American media did not play its role as a check on the government. Why American media did not challenge the government is the real question that should be asked. That their reporting was not rigorous is simply a byproduct of this failure.