New York Times Managing Editor Admits Pre-War Failings

The managing editor of the New York Times, Jill Abramson, has admitted in a lengthy review of Bob Woodward's latest book that the Times failed to publish enough front-page articles questioning the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Midway through her 3,000-plus word review of "The War Within," Bob Woodward's latest book about George W. Bush's presidency, Abramson writes, "In 'Plan of Attack' Woodward acknowledges an error of his own: he admits he should have pushed The Washington Post to publish a front-page article about the flimsiness of the intelligence on W.M.D. I was Washington bureau chief for The Times while this was happening, and I failed to push hard enough for an almost identical, skeptical article, written by James Risen. This was a period when there were too many credulous accounts of the administration's claims about Iraq's W.M.D. (including some published in The Times and The Post)." Abramson admitted that at the time she "failed to grasp" the importance and the urgency of Risen's article.



Among their postwar failings: rewarding [[PNAC]] founder and [[neoconservative]] pro-war cheerleader [[William Kristol]] by making him a NYT columnist. That's when I canceled my subscription.

Once you cancel a subscription, you can't threaten to cancel it anymore.

Besides, is James Risen still there? Frank Rich? Paul Krugman?

Suppose I canceled on Spin of the Week because you made Rick Berman a guest blogger. The man has a point of view, after all! ;-)

Yes but Mutternich, last I looked, you are NOT forced to pay for Spin of the Week (actually we call it the Weekly Spin, but I know what you mean.) Nice to see your comments.

It just confirms the deal clinched between big media and the Bush Administration (no criticism of the Iraq invasion vs more flexible laws for media conglomerates).

This year media are less forgiving but it comes too late.

Stephane MOT -
blogules and other Weapons of Mass Disinformation


i am not very surprise if you try to analyze the eacg decision of Bush and its consequences you will find that he was working for some lobby