Editors Weigh in on 'N.Y. Times' Admission on Iraq Reporting

By: Joe Strupp The New York Times' editors' note that called attention to problems with several of its Iraq-related stories elicited mixed reactions from newspaper editors and journalism observers alike. Most supported the effort to come clean, but they differed in opinion about the severity of the Times' reporting gaffes and the way the newspaper revealed its mistakes. Some said the episode was worse than the Jayson Blair scandal.

Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, declined to comment on the editors' note specifically, but indirectly took a swipe at the paper's flawed reporting. "If you look back over the history of our reporting on this issue, you will see that it differed from theirs," he said, pointing out that his paper was "detailing how and why they were not finding [weapons of mass destruction] and why their intelligence about it was misinformed."

The note, which appeared Wednesday, admitted errors in the paper's coverage of several issues related to the Iraq War, including failing to question some sources and Bush Administration officials thoroughly. Six articles are singled out as being particularly unfortunate, including four written or co-written by star reporter Judith Miller.

Many editors were critical of the fact that the admission appeared on Page A10, with no Page One teaser and only a short refer from the corrections page. Others offered mixed reactions about how damaging the revelations might be, or whether the paper needs to make an example of any employees.

"The criticisms [cited in the editor's note] have been going on for very long, and the Times has been very stiff-armed about it," said Doug Clifton, editor of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland. "I don't know if this went far enough, I don't know how bad the reporting was."

David Yarnold, editor of the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News, echoed that view. "It was long and pretty thorough, but the issue is that this is not the first time," he said, citing the paper's mistakes regarding its Wen Ho Lee coverage in 2000 that produced a similar correction. "At some point, someone has to say that the Beltway media has to be more skeptical about being spoon-fed by the Bush administration."

Yarnold and Clifton were among several editors who said the mistakes, in some ways, were worse than the Jayson Blair affair. "It's worse because it speaks to the essence of the reporting and editing process," Clifton said. "That is worse than one guy screwing around and playing fast and loose."

One editor at a leading daily, who requested anonymity, said simply, "I don't know how Judy Miller can walk into the building today."

But Brian Toolan, editor of The Hartford Courant, took the focus off of Miller. "I don't think that the United States has its army in Iraq because of Judith Miller's reporting," he said.

Other editors said the Times' move sheds important light on dealing with unnamed sources. "This raises the whole issue of relying on anonymous sources," said Ellen Soeteber, editor of the St. Louis (Mo.) Post-Dispatch. Added Roger Oglesby, editor and publisher of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "We should be using them much more sparingly."

Most of the three dozen editors contacted about this issue either declined to comment, or failed to return calls to E&P. Some had not read the note, while others said they did not want to criticize another newspaper.

Others, however, supported the Times' effort to explain itself, saying it can never hurt to admit mistakes.

"It doesn't surprise me that a paper run by (Executive Editor) Bill Keller and (Managing Editor) Jill Abramson would be introspective about what they put in the paper," said David M. Shribman, editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "They are people of clarity and conscience." Phil Bronstein, editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, agreed. "I'm pretty stunned that they would do it," he said. "But I think it is good, it's valuable."

Martin Kaiser, senior vice president/editor of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, added, "I'm glad they're trying to be transparent with their readers. This is a remarkable self-examination of their coverage, and I commend them for it."

Tom Wicker, a respected former Times writer and columnist, also praised the editor's note, but said it did not explain enough about the paper's overall problems with editorial oversight or who specifically is to blame. "The fact that they publicize this suggests there are some fairly serious journalistic mistakes," he said. "But I don't know how widespread the errors were."

The Courant's Toolan agreed with the Times' decision not to publish the names of reporters involved in the stories. "The New York Times' note was not intended or should have been intended to hang individuals out to dry."

Miller, Keller and Abramson did not return calls seeking comment.

None of those who spoke with E&P were ready to call for the firing of any Times employees or criticize the paper for not naming specific employees who were at fault. "In the way this piece was structured, they did not need to name reporters," said Kaiser. Rex Seline, managing editor/news for the Fort Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram, added, "It is hard for an outsider to say that this was all Judy Miller or all somebody else."

Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent, who is working on a column about the issue for Sunday's paper, said he did not know when editors had decided to run the editor's note, adding that he had not asked for it. "People know I was writing about it and I knew they were doing something on Tuesday, but we work separately," he said.



Charles Geraci contributed to this report.