O NYTimes reviu suas reportagens sobre a crise EUA-Iraque e chegou à conclusão de que pecou em diversas ocasiões, dando mais crédito a certos informantes do que eles originalmente mereciam. Os editores se tocaram que estes informantes estavam mais do que interessados em mostrar um cenário horrível no país e que, na ânsia por material, publicaram matérias “bombásticas” sem levar isso em conta. E reconheceram isto abertamente.

Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. 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. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. 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.

Isto é jornalismo sério.