A Healthy Dose of Skepticism
Old news, I know, but it's interesting to consider daniel okrent's (the new york times public editor) apology for not being more skeptical of government claims about iraq to a. o. scott's skeptical treatment of Michael Moore's "op-ed" film.
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....
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....
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. . . . 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....
We consider the story of Iraq's weapons, and of the pattern of misinformation, to be unfinished business....
but when it comes to michael moore's new movie, nytimes critic a. o. scott (who nevertheless recommends it) seems to get it right the first time: he accuses moore of "blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagoguery." calls the f-911 "unabashedly partisan." refers to moore's "agitprop stunts", and the film's "cheap shots and inconsistencies."
so, i guess my point here is, is the press and the public in greater danger of being hoodwinked by the michael moores of the world, or by the chalabis and cheneys? you decide.
