An apology!! Now and then it happens, but it’s not the
norm. Customarily, the press simply goes about its business and hopes readers
are not paying close attention to how it editorialized earlier.
The people responsible for Post editorial policy should
emphasize the admirable Ignatius apology by emulating it. The paper was avidly
pro-war. Bill Moyers tallied 27 Post editorials in favor of invading Iraq in
the months leading up to the war. Howard Kurtz, a former Post writer, counted
approximately 140 front page articles in the Post making the Bush
administration’s case for war from August 2002 until the invasion in March
2003. The Post’s editorial on the invasion’s tenth anniversary uttered not a
word about the paper’s drum-beating for war. Post readers were owed at least a
reminder of how the paper had pressed for war again and again.
Unlike the Post’s tenth anniversary editorial, which expressed no
misgivings about the war, the New York Times anniversary piece made no effort to hide the Times' contempt for the Iraq war, calling it “unnecessary, costly and damaging on every level.”
Thomas L. Friedman, the Times foreign affairs
columnist, favored the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but didn’t remind readers of that
in his column on the tenth anniversary of the war. Nor did the Times recite for
readers where it stood on the war at its outset.
As a service to readers, the press ought to routinely
disclose consequential positions taken previously. Readers should not have to
plow through archives to learn whether the paper they buy has been altogether
candid with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment