The NY Times has made a partial mea culpa regarding its reporting of the run up to the invasion of Iraq (though the Times and others persist in calling it a war.) Anyway, they admit to lapses in fact checking and to some reporters' over-reliance on Chalabi, who was obviously in the Administration's pocket. Well, what did they expect? They claim to have had balanced coverage, which I would agree with if one read between the lines, read to the bitter end of each piece, read all the inside back page stories, and then took the time to form one's own conclusions. But if one collected all the front covers one would see graphics, photos, and headlines making a veritable slide show for invasion.
But I guess I shouldn't be carping — at least they admitted they were lax and the floodgates are now open for other news gatherers to doubt the word of the neocons.
