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

[deke33]

Now one wonders how a graduate of a State University System would have enough sense to repeatedly post here and elsewhere during the runup to the war a simple question like "Where and what is the "SOLID EVIDENCE and IRREFUTABLE PROOF" that Bush and Cheney said they had?.
As for poor maligned, self pitying Scottie, did he ever hear of two Republicans Called Elliott Richardson, and Ruckleshaus (sp), men who instead of doing the bidding of a covey of crooks in the White House resigned. One wonders Why Scottie did not ask the questions of the principals that the reporters failed to ask of him?

[nancydrew]

Ditto. This graduate of public school and a state university managed to understand that all the screaming about Saddam having WMDs was just a bunch of hooey to justify invading a sovereign nation for absolutely no defensible reason whatsoever. Why did the media just sit on their notebooks, put down their pens, and nod their heads?

Mind you, I think McCellan is a craven huckster who is just trying to sell books because it's easier than asking for job references from the bastards who threw him under the bus (and it pays better to tell one's story this way than under oath after receiving a subpoena from a congressional committee), but he's right about the lazy media. They should all be fired from their highly-paid stenographer jobs and be replaced by people who understand what journalism really is. Are you listening, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, Faux, MSNBC, HNN, NYT, WaPo, etc.? Think of the money you'll save by hiring hungry J-school grads.....­........

[Titonwan]

I didn't read your post until I had already commented, but I see we agree wholeheartedly!

[biwee]

It was not the "liberal media" that sold the war in Iraq, it was the NEOCON media!!

[fedupwithpolitics]

And it wasn't just journalists who were duped--too many Democratic politicians, including Clinton, fell for the propaganda, while millions of ordinary people did not! That speaks volumes about her "good judgment."

[billydog]

Face it, no one would have been duped including the American public if it hadn't been for the fact that America was all too willing to go throw it's weight around and kick someone's ass
in response to 9/11. America was in a needy position to smack someone in revenge and the right wing gladly, happily, joyfully, boastfully and quickly seized the moment to show what a bunch of tough men they are. Why not, they are all bunch of chicken hawks and one thing a chicken hawk needs is a reason to show they can send others off to war "in their name".

[Titonwan]

That's taking into account that you believe all Democrats are real Democrats! Blue Dog Dems are about as bad as the worst the GOP have to offer. Worse in some respects because they hide in sheeps clothing, hiding their long snouts and bare fangs.

[LeonBNJ]

Sounds like McCellan is trying to cover his own butt and blame the media for what happened. He was part of the propganda scams of the Bush Administration. The MSM had it's own agenda, including dealing with the FCC and Justice Dept. Anti-trust regulators so they could do mergers of various businesses so didn't want to tick off the Adminstration and lose profitable opportunites if they spoke against them.
It is a shame that McCellan may be more motivated by money he gets for his writings, instead of realizing he was part of a machine that led to the disasterous war in Iraq, with over 4100 US Soldiers dead and many times that injured. He should donate his fees to help injured soldiers.

[tompoe]

Scott tells the truth. Except when the administration lies to him, and he "falls" for the propaganda. Integrity has nothing to do with it, right? Who's buying these jerks' books, anyway?

[steve12]

I doubt McCellan would have made any difference if he had spoken out. They would have just fired him and got someone else. I say better late than never. I think McCellan has done a great service to our country and history with finally coming out with the truth.

[Susanfrom29]

Why did the msm buy into this war that even I knew was bogus before it started? Aren't they supposed to have greater access than the rest of us? Surely they knew, as I believed, that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

When the media ceases to be our honest eyes and ears they completely lose their validity and their necessity in our society. If they don't fill the role that they are supposed to, they certainly don't deserve the protections that they are granted in the First Amendment.

[dadw5boys]

This book of his is Propaganda to save the Bush Legacy by BLAMING OTHERS FOR BUSH'S DECISIONS. NO PROOF OFFERED just BULL and lots of it.

THE DECIDER.

Hang your head in shame Bush and just go away.

[continental]

Or it would be even better if dubya just went away doing twenty to life at hard labor, along with cheney, condi, alberto, rummy, and probably a few other neocon miscreants.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

Back in either 2005 or 2006 I picked up a New York Times Sunday Edition that someone had left where I lived at the time.

THEY WERE ALREADY PUSHING FOR WAR WITH IRAN

In that huge, sprawling mass of words I only learned two things: (one of which I already knew)

1. Air ionizers don't work.

2. There are approximately 1000 viable bombing targets in Iran. Some of them will have to be hit 2 or 3 times.

THEY WILL DO IT AGAIN.

[FalconerHK]

Just goes to show that Rebubbas only tell the "truth" when it's too late and they can make a fast buck off of it. Sigh. I wonder what the excuse will be for not hoisting the Bush junta up on impeachment charges now. "Too many crimes to prosecute; where would we start, so let's just give up and continue to appease his criminal ass on the war" is my bet.

Better yet, what will the deflection scandal be this time, since they already used up the JonBenet non-killer, the long-arrested al qaida number 2s in Iraqistan and Wright's goddamn America?

[Mike789]

Well, for once rather than feeling violated by the administration, I feel validated. LOL

Every day, something new. Something creepy. I'm beginning to wonder, if I've somehow gone to Bizarro-World.

[Americanium]

Damn, I canceled my subscription for the weaker reason.

[BadChristian]

"McClellan charges that Bush relied on 'propaganda' to sell the war."

Isn't there some kind of rule against "propaganda?"
or is that only if doesn't have quotation marks around it?

At any rate... The people who used propaganda (or "propaganda") should feel proud. People, lots and lots of people, died for those lies.
Hope the book does well.

[OleHippieChick]

Our government is NOT ALLOWED TO PROPAGANDIZE its own people. In other countries we can sling the lies, but here IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.

[duckfan00]

Again, why have Articles of Impeachment not been started. Bush's own press secretary confirms the truth we all have known all along. Now watch the Bushbots portray McClellan as a low level peon who was not privy to the information. You have to laugh that Cheney is now thinking tonight of ways to trash McClellan.

[Jamesdean]

Do you really think the Democrats have the balls to impeach Bush?

[oldpotsmuggler]

You're right about the balls. But balls and evidence are not the same thing. And the evidence just keeps piling up, unto overflowing.

[Susanfrom29]

I think they need more than that.

[billysviez]

no Balls for anything that is good for Our Country.

[Durango]

Balls yes. Votes No.