Scott McClellan Mocks NYT -- Near 4th Anniversary of Paper's Weak 'Mini-culpa' on the War

In a supreme irony, word leaked out about bombshell revelations in the upcoming Scott McClellan memoir -- including his unexpected charge that the "liberal media" fell for Bush "propaganda" on Iraq -- almost precisely four years from the day from The New York Times offered its famous "mini-culpa" on its role in helping to pave the way for war.

The Times, you remember, reluctantly published a short piece, admitting that a half dozen of its stories in the run-up to the war were fatally flawed, but didn't name any of the guilty scribes and buried the story on Page A10 - about where many of its articles that had raised doubts about Saddam's WMD had ended up.

Now here is McClellan in his book, What Happened, as quoted by Mike Allen of Politico.com, admitting that the Times and other media had been too easily hoodwinked by the White House. He calls them "enablers" in the march to war.

McClellan charges that Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the war. Allen summarizes: "He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war....McClellan repeatedly embraces the rhetoric of Bush's liberal critics."

In the book, McClellan charges: "If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. ... In this case, the 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."

Ouch.

E&P was one of the few "mainstream" publications to repeatedly raise serious questions about the case for war before the invasion. In the months after the attack, we often charged that the Times had been duped and questioned why it refused to come clean. Executive Editor Bill Keller mocked some of the critics (and later stood by Judith Miller through thick and thin).

Finally, on May 26, 2004, the paper ran an editors' note, copping to some of the charges. But the paper tried to shield the guilty parties, and I was first online to identify by name the authors of the six pieces in question, with Miller turning out to be most guilty, and Michael Gordon also having a hand in two stories.

The paper refused to penalize any reporters or editors for their failures. Jack Shafer of Slate memorably called the mea culpa a "mini-culpa."

Perhaps most embarrassing, the paper's reluctant review sparked some other papers that had carried the faulty Times accounts in 2002 and 2003 to run corrections of their own. Many of them placed their own apologies in far more prominent positions than did the Times.

And clearly Keller had been reluctant to own up to the misreporting at all, at least in that time frame. Consider that my assessment of the Times' report, carried the day it appeared, closed with this: "But Executive Editor Bill Keller continues to defend the editors' note, and blamed 'overwrought' critics for overreacting to the Times's WMD coverage. Asked why he finally published the editors' note, Keller (quoted in the Washington Post) replied: 'Mainly because it was a distraction. This buzz about our coverage had become a kind of conventional wisdom, much of it overwrought and misinformed.'

"With his managing editor, Jill Abramson, he penned a memo to staffers explaining that the critique in the paper was 'not an attempt to find a scapegoat or to blame reporters for not knowing then what we know now.'

The problem of course was that certain reporters ignored, or only paid lip service to, evidence that "we know now' - but (as some Knight Ridder reporters showed) was often also available then."

But don't take my word for it. Ask Scott McClellan.

Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq. It features a preface by Bruce Springsteen and a foreword by Joe Galloway. He is editor of Editor & Publisher.

Comments

[JFB]

My question is this: are the NYT and other MSM propagandists in the march to war possibly vulnerable to a class action lawsuit? I ask this not out of a desire for revenge (although I believe that those individuals within the media who are responsible for enabling this war should be held accountable), but in hopes that such a lawsuit might force greater responsibility upon the forth branch of government for the future. Certainly the question of substantive damages is irrefutable, and with the growing evidence of media complicity (McClellan is only the most recent source of proof) it would seem that there are grounds for such a class action lawsuit.

[krocklin]

The Bush administration was going to govern in "campaign mode" no matter what. That is the Rove way.
They - including Bush himself (especially him in fact) - enjoy the triumph of their deceptive ways.
The only alarm they will ever feel is if there is a growing movement to hold them responsible for war and other crimes.
The polls don't even concern them. Just this looming but unfortunately doubtful possibility does.

[infinity]

It's infuriating to note these excerpts don't contain any apology, or contrition, by McClellan for the death and injury of our armed services women and men in Iraq, and to their families, or to the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed or injured in this immoral and illegal war. He is still a despicable person unwilling to admit his culpability in the death and destruction of the war. He's no different than any of the vile warmongers of the Administration, war profiteers, and duplicitous corporate media. Utter contempt on them all. Hey piss ant, where is your public penitence?

[ez14livin]

We've known for months that McClellan was writing a tattle tale expose...

You are as guilty as anyone else involved for your role as disseminator of the propaganda.

Coming clean now (for profilt) will not cleanse your soul. Let's see you on the stand testifying against this administration for the war crimes they have committed. It won't get you a free pass, but maybe a reduced sentence...

Proceeds from your book should go to the families of those killed and toward medical expenses of those wounded by the criminal acts to which you were a party.

[Durango]

True, true all true.

But Scottie was never very good at his job. He always had a guilty look about him. It was obvious at the time even HE didn't believe what he was saying.

And couldn't believe that the White House Press Corps was eating it up.

So how bad is the Press Corps when even the person charged with lying to them can't believe it?

P.S. Whats the insidie story of Gannon/Guckert? Am dying to know.

[IngeniousGirl]

Sorry, it appears that Scott had a moment where he experienced ethical clarity, realizing that this was fleshed out by him over a period of time. So give him some credit, and at least let's be grateful he has revealed this information especially about the Press. If anyone in the Press pressed the President or was negative they were fired, Donahue, Maher, anyone who took an opposite opinion was drowned out by the administration and bullied and described as a "nut cake" or worse. These are Rovian tactics clearly they are doing this right now.

Scott didn't prosecute this war, he has come clean, and you'll just have to ask yourself if this happened to me how would I handle it.

[faust2001]

"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out."--Robert Graves, Claudius the God

[rwt1138]

Someone needs to send a copy to Brian Williams, Richard Wolfe, John King, and all the other political correspondents who have been steadfastly arguing that they are good journalists doing a fine job with a note:

Hey guys, even Scott McLellan thinks you're wimps and lapdogs.

[Durango]

Stephanopolis, Gibbons, Curic, Russert and every pontificating jerk wad in the broadcast media.

With the exceptions of Moyers, Olberman, Stewart and Colbert.

All the rest should be fired.

[Kundera]

Moyers has Vietnam on his hands. He made the despicable daisy ads for LBJ.

[Binx101]

I'm with you except for Olbermann ...

Don't get me wrong - I watch his show - I like him. It's just that he's a knee jerker.

Those special comments and the whipped up emotion are more than I can take. Perhaps its the preacher style or the drama that loses me. Again - I think he's honest, trustworthy, gutsy - I love the beatings he gives FOX.

It's just those special comments are steeped in a bravura that makes one ear and one flap shut.

Then again - I've been told some of my articles have cured insomnia. Perhaps I'm just envious.

Binx101
The Almost Daily Binx
http://binx101.wordpress.com

[steve12]

Not that I disagree, but it's pretty sad that you applaud "fake" newsmen like Stewart and Colbert, when most of MSM failed their profession and America in the run-up to the war.

[AllAmericanAmericanBoy]

Don't forget Amy Goodman ( Democracy Now! )

The biggest problem with the 'Liberal Media' is that they are so hard to find.

[Doofus]

So, we have understood for years that any 'info' emanating from the
White House press office is likely to be pure B.S. Unfortunately, there
are a lot who believe it, support the president, voted for him again, etc.

How outrageous is it that another of these idiotic press office liars has
the gall to make a profit on his own lies?

As for the NYT, you only have to read the words of some of their semi-
neo-con (perhaps I'm being too kind) columnists from that era.

Said Tom Friedman on Jan 5, 2003:

'I have no problem with a war for oil -- if we accompany it with a real program for energy conservation. ...
If, on the other hand, the Bush team, and the American people, prove willing to stay in Iraq and pay the full price, in money and manpower, needed to help Iraqis build a more progressive, democratizing Arab state -- one that would use its oil income for the benefit of all its people and serve as a model for its neighbors -- then a war partly over oil would be quite legitimate. It would be a critical step toward building a better Middle East.' ...

[LutherBrixton]

I'm confused. So there's no such thing as a liberal media and rightwing propaganda dominates the mainstream media???? But I hear repeatedly of the "liberal bias in the media" from every single MSM outlet!! How can that be? It would almost seem as though the rightwing propaganda machine not only controls ALL the information being broadcast on US mainstream networks and newspapers, but simultaneously lies about some non-existent liberal media in order to silence any criticism of their domination of the MSM. I am so confused! I don’t know what to think! Damn, liberal media!

[steve12]

To me, liberal media is more about corporate media, than advocating any particular ideology. They put profit above principle. Fox does both. NY Times is sometimes the greatest paper in the world and other times, it's just good enough to line my bird cage. The networks are useless. CNN is becoming Fox Lite. MSNBC is becoming a liberal version of Fox, which I don't think is a good thing.

I like the good old days when you couldn't tell the ideology of the anchor and that truth was the guiding principle. I guess I'm showing my age.

[dadw5boys]

Scott is trying to transfer the blame eventually to Rumsfeld and the Pentagon Propaganda Progam AWAY FROM BUSH!!!!!!

Don't let Bush fool you with more Propaganda!!!!!!

[lookingAhead]

Liberal Media??? WTF Fox noise etc...Now that Keith Olberman is starting to take them to task all hell is breaking loose. We have been dumb down by the MSM and even the liberal radio stations are jumping on Keith. Some don' t like his commentary or the way he says it, then turn the channel like everyone else does that refuses to hear an opinion other then the corporation or washington press release. He is the only one that calls out the lying bunch of hypocrites and everyone goes crazy. Yet when Bill O or the rest of his ink says crazy shit it o.k. Seem like double standards from the MSM. What will they do when they are forced to tell the truth about there lack of responsibility to this country. Oh that's right they will blame it on someone else. As far as print news McClatchy has been the ONLY one with integrity the rest is garbage. I stopped reading the NYT a long time ago they helped to get this country in the mess we are in now. So stop bitchin and take responsibility for once. You allowed and still allow shotty reporting and bury story's that should be on the front page.

[cshlafer]

Don't worry, Olbermann won't last at this rate. I can't see MSNBC keeping him too much longer if he insists on repeatedly telling the truth the way he does. And getting angry at pundits and political leaders who don't, no less!

[BluGirlRedState]

MSNBC loves Keith and his "Special Comments." The first Special Comment got such a great response from the viewership that they wanted him to do one every day! He told them he only did them when he was "moved" by some event, otherwise, they would not ring true. MSNBC is getting the viewership of the young audience, which are the target ages for advertisement so this is also pleasing to the decision makers. Keith has been told that as long as he is making the station money he has the freedom to do the show as he likes. Look it up. Lot's of articles about his rise at MSNBC.

[C65]

LOOKINGAHEAD,
I totally agree with you,if it's true it doesn't sell or bring ratings.When the truth finally
makes it to the forefront,then everyone else is the blame.When are we as American
going to learn that:"MOUTH WILL SAY ANYTHING,YESTERDAY,TODAY AND FOREVER",
because Morals values have died with our ancestors,and moral judgement is OLD
FASHION.

[arvay]

The Times has a shameful record for intellectual dishonesty as well as incompetence, and needs to be constantly scrutinized by readers. The Times papered over news of Stalin's extermination of millions of Ukrainian "kulaks" with utterly false reports, for example. No big shock, then, that the Times and its Washington Post sister would push for Bush's war on Iraq and repeat his lies. The Grey lady has a deep genetic truth problem.

[Durango]

Stalin's extermination of Ukranians?

That is pretty far afield.

I would prefer something a little more current. It is not like we are lacking material to be critical of.

[Doofus]

NYT - May 26, 2004 [part 1]
FROM THE EDITORS; The Times and Iraq

Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. We have examined the failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists. We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves.

In doing so -- reviewing hundreds of articles written during the prelude to war and into the early stages of the occupation -- we found an enormous amount of journalism that we are proud of. In most cases, what we reported was an accurate reflection of the state of our knowledge at the time, much of it painstakingly extracted from intelligence agencies that were themselves dependent on sketchy information. And where those articles included incomplete information or pointed in a wrong direction, they were later overtaken by more and stronger information. That is how news coverage normally unfolds.

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge. ...

[Doofus]

[part 2]

The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on ''regime change'' in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations -- in particular, this one.

Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. ...

[Doofus]

[part 3]

Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all.

On Oct. 26 and Nov. 8, 2001, for example, Page 1 articles cited Iraqi defectors who described a secret Iraqi camp where Islamic terrorists were trained and biological weapons produced. These accounts have never been independently verified.

On Dec. 20, 2001, another front-page article began, ''An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago.'' Knight Ridder Newspapers reported last week that American officials took that defector -- his name is Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri -- to Iraq earlier this year to point out the sites where he claimed to have worked, and that the officials failed to find evidence of their use for weapons programs. It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq, but in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in. And until now we have not reported that to our readers. ...

[Titonwan]

Good accurate reporting! I'm sorry though, about not sympathizing too much about a turncoat. I'm an independent with strong leftist leanings, but I don't admire people that change their tune in the middle of the river because a different power in on the other bank. Democrat or Republican- makes no difference. Kinda like Hillary Clinton, with all of her vastly changed rhetoric and metrics from when the primaries began. What is, by far greater, the measure of a person, is to stick to your guns and remain consistent. Neither one has. Voicing these opinions, back when they counted, would have changed the dynamics (and the outcome?) of their destiny, but would have assured them a place in history as being brave. Why are there so few BRAVE politicians anymore? Scott could have resigned. Hillary could have bowed out. Would have, could have, should have...

[leftLibertarian]

The facts are plain: Bush set up a propaganda system to sell the war to America. There never were WMD , links to al-quida and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

If it wasn't for the feeble Democrats, Bush, Cheney et al would be sitting in prison.

[deke33]

I despise Scott for, I suspect, wittingly going along with the Bush propaganda agenda.
But I further despise the NYTimes for its role in the 2000 election. Florida Law as applied to close elections was quite clear.
" If the returns for any office reflect that a candidate was defeated or eliminated by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office, ... the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a recount of the votes cast with respect to such office or measure."
Further more our Constitution states "Any powers not expressly given to the Federal Government are reserved to the states and the people". It is state governments that decide the qualifications necessary to vote. It is the state governments that conduct elections within their borders. It is the state government that determines the winners of elections. It is the state government that provides laws and regulations on elections. It is the state government that determines how a recount in an election is to be conducted. It is the state government, following the rules, regulations and laws that determines the winners of any election, especially close ones.
This unesteemed Supreme Court was so embarassed by its ruling that they added a codicil to that ruling that said this decision applies to this case only. It could not be used to set a precedent! Where was the NYTimes

[Durango]

Hell go back to the NYT coverage of the numerous and completely bogus Clinton scandals. They knew all along they were BS.

But I agree, the election fraud perpetrated on the American people was another low,low, low point.