by TChris

If the NY Times can say "We were wrong," why can't the President?

[W]e have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. ... The problematic articles ... depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. ...

Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all.

The Times catalogs some of the instances in which the paper was duped by misinformation and provides a link to more comprehensive coverage of its errant reporting. The paper deserves praise for setting the record straight.

Now if only the Bush administration would do the same.