On Way Out, Okrent Knocks 'N.Y. Times' WMD and Civilian Casualty Coverage

Editor andPublisher ^ | May 12, 2005 | Staff of Editor and Publisher

[WmShirerAdmirer]

About to be liberated from his duties at The New York Times, outgoing Public Editor Daniel Okrent, who was critical of the paper's pre-Iraq war coverage but in a measured way, spoke more bluntly in an interview with Salon.com this week.

Okrent said the Times did "a lousy job on WMD," and, while it was "not consciously evil," it was "bad journalism, even very bad journalism."

Asked if the Judith Miller-led distortions on WMD has proven more destructive than the sins of ex-reporter Jayson Blair, Okrent responded: "I don't know if I could speak to comparative sins. It certainly was a very serious case of bad journalism. It was not, to the best of my ability to determine, a case of 'I know we're lying as I write this,' which Jayson Blair was. Here was a guy consciously plagiarizing. Here was a guy who meant to break the rules. The Times did a lousy job on WMD, but I can't imagine there was anybody in the office saying: 'Let's make up some things.'"

Asked if the Times made a mistake in not disciplining Miller, Okrent replied: "I don't know that one can say she wasn't disciplined. They don't reveal personnel matters to me. For all I know, she was disciplined. For all anyone knows, she was disciplined. Only Judith Miller and Times management know for sure."

And what about the famous Times editors' note that promised aggressive coverage of the WMD misinformation campaign to partially make up for its original lapses? ""There was one really good long piece by Michael Gordon," Okrent replied. "But I don't think it was enough. I think they could have done more."

In another area, asked if the Times has reported aggressively enough on civilian casualties in Iraq, Okrent answered, "No. I think on civilian casualties they could do more. It's actually something I've discussed with the editors involved. They're aware of it, and I'm hopeful that there will be more reporting on that."

[WmShirerAdmirer]

Touché. At last someone (an insider no less) is willing to call the kettle black!

[stylin19a]

I'm not getting a feel for "lousy job on WMD's".
Which way ?

[KC_Conspirator]

I have a feeling that this guy thinks the NY Slimes is not liberal or activist enough.

[NavySEAL F-16]

Too little, too late as far as I am concerned. Until they turn in the Pulitzer Prize for Duranty and admit their culpability in the atrocities of Stalin, the Times has no chance for redemption.

[republicofdavis]

"I have a feeling that this guy thinks the NY Slimes is not liberal or activist enough."

That is correct. The moonbats think that Judith Miller's reporting gave the President the cover he needed to start the war. They cite this as a piece of their "evidence" that the MSM is really a part of BushCo.

[OldFriend]

The Slimes and many others in the media are chastising themselves for believing the WMD story.

Never mind that the evidence has been out there for at least a decade.

[Gunrunner2]

Exactly. . .apparently the senile Gray Lady wasn't hard enough on pre-war WMD coverage. That's the sense I get.

[KC_Conspirator]

So I guess he thinks that the NY Slimes should have covered Abu Grabanarab prison for 35 staright days instead of the 34 that appeared on the front page.

The Times has not endorsed a president since Eisenhower that was a Republican. Pathetic.

[Tarpon]

The Times thinks they let their readers down by not questioning the WMD part of the 17 reasons Bush gave for attacking Iraq. At the same time they leave out the fact that they should have attacked the UN's Mr mcGoo Blix couldn't sit there with a straight face and tell the world Saddam didn't have WMDs. Nor could any other intell agency on the planet do that -- remember Putin's public warning to Bush about Iraq having WMDs right before the war?

The coalition of the bribed is another matter -- the NYTimes see no problem with their lack of reporting on the Oil for WMD scam and bribery parade and how the whole war could have possibility been averted if the UN had taken a hard line with a unified front. So now we are beginning to learn how bad the coalition of the bribed were bribed, the NYTimes is right on top of the story -- right? Just like they are right on top of the criminal trial of the NY Senator's finance guy -- Simple question, just suppose it was Delay's finance guy on trial ...

So I guess it's a wash -- the Times is a lost cause all the way. Time to move on.

Once the lies start, you just have to keep lying.

[WmShirerAdmirer]

You are all right. I should have read the article with a more critical eye before posting my comment. I took it at a first quick reading, as criticism that the reporting was not fair and balanced,and for not digging deeper for the truth, but instead just sweeping the surface and reporting only on that.

Appears now at second reading of the article and your comments, that he's saying the "digging in the direction of the NYT's held opinion and "slant" for reporting" wasn't at a steeper and greater degree, and therefore it was bad journalism.