Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting writes: "During the weeks following September's terrorist attacks, two leading dailies used their op-ed pages as an echo chamber for the government's official policy of military response, mostly ignoring dissenters and policy critics. A FAIR survey of the New York Times and the Washington Post op-ed pages for the three weeks following the attacks (9/12/01 - 10/2/01) found that columns calling for or assuming a military response to the attacks were given a great deal of space, while opinions urging diplomatic and international law approaches as an alternative to military action were nearly non-existent. ... More than any other newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post — with their unmatched influence in the nation's capitol and in U.S. newsrooms — have a duty to provide readers with a wide range of views on how to deal with terrorism, its causes and solutions. If the purpose of the op-ed page is to provide a vigorous debate including critical opinions, both papers failed their readers at a crucial time. "