Two of America's most respected newspapers have admitted that their editors knowingly "resisted" publishing information that challanged the official excuse for invading Iraq.
US news media admits promoting lies about Iraq's WMD
There was no evidence to support the allies' claims that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD. Meanwhile, there was ample evidence to prove that the politicians were lying, and clear alterior motives to explain why. The Washington Post concedes: "We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier". The New York Times confess that their coverage "was not as rigorous as it should have been".
The US corporate media promotes government propaganda while actively suppressing the other side of the story. As a result the majority of Americans live in a state of perpetual delusion about what their government is doing and why.
Intelligent people around the world are increasingly turning to alternative sources such as this to discover the truth behind the mainstream news headlines.
News.com.au, "Washington Post admits pre-Iraq 'flaws'", 12 August 2004.
[ http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10423940%255E401,00.html ]
EDITORS at US daily newspaper The Washington Post have acknowledged they underplayed stories questioning US President George W Bush's claims in the lead up to the US invasion of Iraq.
In the story published in the newspaper today, Post media critic Howard Kurtz writes that editors resisted stories that questioned whether Bush had evidence that Saddam Hussein 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?"
Executive editor Leonard Downie 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 and were questioning the administration's rationale."
In the story, which runs for more than 3,000 words for today's edition of the Post, Kurtz writes, "The result was coverage that, despite flashes of groundbreaking reporting, in hindsight looks strikingly one-sided at times."
A number of critics have faulted the American news media for not being more sceptical about the Bush administration's claims before the beginning of the war in March 2003. In the year and a half since Saddam was toppled, US troops have yet to discover any weapons of mass destruction.
In a study published in March by the Centre for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, researchers wrote: "If the White House acted like a WMD story was important, ... so too did the media. If the White House ignored a story (or an angle on a story), the media were likely to as well."
In May, The New York Times criticised its own reporting on Iraq, saying it found "a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been" and acknowledging it sometimes "fell for misinformation" from exile Iraqi sources.
The Associated Press
"The Insider" mailing list article, 18 August 2004.
Tags: Iraq, war, propaganda, American, mass, media, lies, news, alternative, online, , conspiracy theories.