Posted on 05/12/2005 1:11:32 PM PDT by 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."
I'm not getting a feel for "lousy job on WMD's".
Which way ?
I have a feeling that this guy thinks the NY Slimes is not liberal or activist enough.
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.
"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.
Never mind that the evidence has been out there for at least a decade.
Exactly. . .apparently the senile Gray Lady wasn't hard enough on pre-war WMD coverage. That's the sense I get.
The Times has not endorsed a president since Eisenhower that was a Republican. Pathetic.
Once the lies start, you just have to keep lying.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.