Washington Post says its pre-War Iraq coverage was flawed.
Thursday, August 12, 2004 at 04:24PM
TheSpook
Editors at The Washington Post acknowledge they
underplayed stories questioning President Bush's claims of the threat
posed by Saddam Hussein in the months leading up to the U.S. invasion
of Iraq. In the story published Thursday in the newspaper, Post media
critic Howard Kurtz writes that editors resisted stories that
questioned whether Bush had evidence that Saddam was hiding weapons of
mass destruction. "We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame
myself mightily for not pushing harder," assistant managing editor Bob
Woodward says in the story. "We should have warned readers we had
information that the basis for this was shakier" than many believed.
Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks told Kurtz, "There was an attitude
among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all
this contrary stuff?" [more ]
Post Article: The Post on WMDs: An Inside Story [more]
New York Times Admits POOR Iraq WMD Coverage of Bush Lies [more]
UM study critical of WMD coverage: Media said to buy administration line [more]
]