RSS FeedFacebookSearch
Gary Younge
Washington Post apologises for underplaying WMD scepticism

In a 3,000-word front-page article the newspaper said it "did not pay enough attention to voices raising questions about the war".

The admission followed similar articles by the New York Times and New Republic magazine, which said they were either insufficiently rigorous, gullible or more concerned with getting stories first than getting them right.

Leonard Downie, the Post's executive editor, said: "We were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war ... Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part. [Across the country] the voices raising questions about the war were the lonely ones. We didn't pay enough attention to the minority."

The Post's editorials favoured the war. The day after Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, made his pivotal presentation to the UN, its leader said: "It is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."

Its more sceptical news articles were relegated to the back of the paper, while the White House's pronouncements, which have since been proved erroneous, were given front-page treatment.

"The result," said media correspondent Howard Kurtz in the Post, "was coverage that, despite flashes of groundbreaking reporting, in hindsight looks strikingly one-sided at times."

Michael Massing, whose forthcoming book Now They Tell Us rebukes the American press for its coverage of the war, said: "On the key issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction the paper was generally napping along with everyone else. It gave readers little hint of the doubts that a number of intelligence analysts had about the administration's claims regarding Iraq's arsenal".

Inside the Post the criticism focused on misplaced priorities. Thomas Ricks, the Pentagon correspondent, told Kurtz: "There was an attitude among editors: 'Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?'"

Others in the paper were less contrite.

"I believe we pushed as hard or harder than anyone to question the administration," said Liz Spayd, the assistant managing editor for national news.

"Do I wish we would have ... pushed harder and deeper into questions of whether they possessed weapons of mass destruction? Absolutely. Do I feel we owe our readers an apology? I don't think so."

© Gary Younge. All Rights reserved, site built with tlc
Who Are We – And Should It Matter in the 21st Century?
book review
The more power an identity carries, the less likely its carrier is to be aware of it as an identity at all.
 follow on twitter
RT @MondaviCenter: On Mon, Mar 2 author Gary Younge will speak at @ucdavis about his book `Another Day in the Death of America' as part of…
RT @DrFrancesRyan: EXCITING. #Crippled is out on audiobook today! Ken Loach says it reminds him “what real journalism looks like.” The Gu…
RT @nickhopkinsnews: 'Judge me fairly': man who starved to death's plea to welfare officials
Activists looking to fine tune your campaign work in a diverse, inclusive environment? Check out @campaigncamp! App…
"The media has a job to do in terms of insisting on people’s humanity — not restoring their humanity because their…
RT @philipseargeant: Was great to have the opportunity to interview @garyyounge about protest movements & political activism - and at a tim…
RT @GoldsmithsUCU: “Staff & student didn’t cause this crisis. We’re not going to pay this price - the price is too high” @garyyounge tells…
RT @GoldsmithsUCU: “We’re here to make things better and to stop things getting worse” @garyyounge back on our picket lines for the 3rd tim…
See you in the picket line
RT @Malala: She’s the only friend I’d skip school for.
© Gary Younge. All Rights reserved, site built with tlc