Some news organizations, including The New York Times, are currently engaged in self-criticism over the run-up to the Iraq war. They are asking, as they should, why poorly documented claims of a dire threat received prominent, uncritical coverage, while contrary evidence was either ignored or played down. But it's not just Iraq, and it's not just The Times. Many journalists seem to be having regrets about the broader context in which Iraq coverage was embedded: …
showed first 75 words of 724 total

showed last 75 words of 724 total
…great risk to his career, to offer a realistic picture of the Bush presidency ? "the White House press corps showed its teeth" for the first time since 9/11. It didn't last: the administration beat the drums of war, and most of the press relapsed into docility. But this time may be different. And if it is, Mr. Bush ? who has always depended on that docility ? may be in even more trouble than the latest polls suggest.