Al-Qaqaa Reconsidered: The competition throws stones at the New York Times scoop

Slate ^ | October 29, 2004 | Jack Shafer

[Bitter Bierce]

That there are two sides to every story is not something that would automatically occur to the man who reads only one newspaper. If you've followed the Al-Qaqaa news only in the New York Times, where it broke, you might believe that the United States committed an unspeakable blunder in failing to guard the 380 tons of high explosives it knew Saddam harbored in the Al-Qaqaa weapons complex. The Times' Oct. 25 scoop and its Oct. 27 and Oct. 29 follow-ups give that impression. But if you've consumed the Washington Post alongside the Times, your certainty about an American miscue would have evaporated by now. The Post's Oct. 27 catch-up piece and its Oct. 29, Page One naysayer, "Munitions Issue Dwarfs the Big Picture," portray the missing munitions as an overplayed story.

Journalists live to knock down what their competitors write: Nobody at the Gazette ever made his mark by re-reporting and confirming what the Bugle published. But the Post isn't zigging on the Al-Qaqaa story simply because the Times zagged. It's whittling away at the Times account, as I noted earlier this week, because the Times scoop raises questions about Al-Qaqaa that Times editors should have answered before they sent the scoop to print.

[Bitter Bierce]

It's a beautiful thing to see one prominent liberal newspaper attack another, particularly when only one of them can possibly be right.

[kingattax]

pass the popcorn, please....hehe

[GeronL]

haha

[paudio]

I haven't read either newspaper. I know that NYT put the story in the 1st page as "news". Did WP also put it as "news" or as an Op-ed?

[Danno]

I am glad to see this but I am hoping that the pressure remains on Kerry/Edwards for the reckless way they took this story and beat our government (lets forget about Bush/Cheney here) down into the ground about it. Also, of course, the NY Times and CBS need to be brought up on some sort of intense ridicule and subsequent payback.

Kerry once again has shown how pathetically opportunistic he is and loyal, to his own power ambitions rather than to decency, character and even his own government which he sees only as the Bush/Cheney nemesis.

I feel so very sorry for any soldiers stationed abroad, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq who have to be sweating this election out. Can you understand how horrible they might feel on the morning of November 3rd if the wrong man wins this election?

[Bitter Bierce]

The first (October 27) Washington Post piece was reported as "news" on page A27, while the second (October 29) was reported as "news" on page A01.

[endthematrix]

"So, don't judge the Times too harshly if its Oct. 25 article didn't tell the story perfectly—under the accepted conventions, the paper did great work."

Who's conventions? Thanks, but no thanks. I'll make my own critique.

[Fenris6]

"It's a beautiful thing to see one prominent liberal newspaper attack another"

Agreed. But props to the Wash Post - they still have a subtle left-bias, but manage to retain some semblance of integrity that the NYT and CBS have abandoned.

[Bitter Bierce]

Agreed. We can only hope, pray, vote, and do whatever is humanly possible to prevent election fraud.

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

The latest shift in Iowa Election Market is towards Bush on all contracts. Probably a combination of the Osama tape, the "ex-American Al Qaida ranter" tape, and the continuing demolition of the CBS/NYT latest "October surprise fizzle".

See the graphs of the contracts at:

http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_Pres04_WTA.cfm

[Bitter Bierce]

While I completely agree with you that the Post is generally much less objectionable than the Times, in my view it is nevertheless disgusting that "some semblance of integrity" is good enough for a passing grade these days.

[Bitter Bierce]

It should be quite interesting to see if and how the numbers change after Friday's UBL videotape and what I prefer to call the "October Suicide."

[norwaypinesavage]

"And always remember to read more than one newspaper a day."

Better yet: don't read any newspapers. Read FR.