The New York Times issued a rare apology for failing to rigorously investigate the rationale for the Iraq war. The editor's note admitted stark failures to verify information fed to reporters by those wishing to make the case for war. By not critically investigating claims of weapons of mass destruction, the Times validated the primary rationale for war, which has now been largely discredited. The Times and other major news organizations suppressed credible voices of dissent that should have been heard in 2002 and 2003 when the case for war was being made.

The paper reviewed its reporting and discovered a "pattern of misinformation" that it is continuing to investigate. This body blow comes at a time of unprecedented journalism crises and outright fraud committed by the most respected names in the business.

These reporting failures have been known for some time. A lengthy but clearly written feature by Michael Massing, titled Now They Tell Us (February 2004), argued eloquently that many of the big media companies systematically suppressed reliable dissenting views in the run-up to war:

Why didn't we learn more about these deceptions and concealments in the months when the administration was pressing its case for regime change—when, in short, it might have made a difference? ... Beginning in the summer of 2002, the "intelligence community" was rent by bitter disputes over how Bush officials were using the data on Iraq. Many journalists knew about this, yet few chose to write about it.

Massing writes that reporting was corrupted by the influence of the White House:

[The Bush administration] made it extremely difficult to do this kind of [investigative] work ... rewarding sympathetic reporters with leaks, background interviews, and seats on official flights ... freezing out reporters who didn't play along. In a city where access is all, few wanted to risk losing it.

Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker has been exposing the propaganda and deception for over a year now. See Who Lied to Whom (3/24/03), Selective Intelligence (5/5/03), The Stovepipe (10/20/03), and Behind the “Mushroom Cloud” (10/21/03).

Slate has also been debunking the Times Iraq coverage for over more than 14 months, asking in April 2003 whether the paper had "changed the rules of journalism." Slate called the Times' apology a "mini culpa" for its mealy-mouthed excuses.

Frontline has a well researched feature, Truth, War & Consequences, that examines the rationale for war and what went wrong -- and why truth is the first casualty of war.

The Times reporter responsible for much of the faulty coverage, Judith Miller, described her responsibility as a journalist:

My job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal.

When journalists see themselves as mouthpieces for the government instead of dogged and independent critics, our very freedom through informed democracy is at risk.