3 ms·

I would say The New York Times falsely claiming that Iraq had WMD and helping to champion the Iraq war was far more damaging than anything that has happened on

I would say The New York Times falsely claiming that Iraq had WMD and helping to champion the Iraq war was far more damaging than anything that has happened on social media. The MSM may steer clear of the obvious falsehoods like vaportrails/5g mind control, but the misinformation they do provide is extra dangerous, especially when it's a joint effort with the government.

pjc50 6y ago
> The New York Times falsely claiming that Iraq had WMD This gets brought up absolutely every single time, and I would love someone to link to the original primary historical sources. Their archive is all on the internet; could some committed person find what they actually said? Did they confirm it themselves, or did they just report what government spokespeople said?
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  Here's a good analysis: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-coverage https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-cov...
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  They didn't claim to have personally seen the WMDs, but they acknowledged in a 2004 apology (https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th...) that they created a systematically false impression about the veracity of the evidence. The apology includes references to specific articles if you're interested to read them in detail, but the general thread is an uncritical presentation of uncorroborated evidence from sources who had obvious incentives to mislead the public.
- dgellow 6y ago
  It's more complicated: they repeated lies from the CIA and Bush administration (regarding WMD and the need for an invasion), AND added their own spin on top of this. It's not too different from what they are still doing now. It's always the same: ignore the part you don't like, amplify facts that will suit your needs, then spin your own narrative on top.
- jellicle 6y ago
  Here's a summary from 2004: https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/ https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/ "During the winter of 2001 and throughout 2002, Miller produced a series of stunning stories about Saddam Hussein’s ambition and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, based largely on information provided by Chalabi and his allies—almost all of which have turned out to be stunningly inaccurate." In short, the Pentagon found a credulous NYT reporter and hooked her up with a succession of fictitious sources, which she ate up and asked for seconds. The NYT repeatedly ran stories on page 1 that were complete fiction, and played a material part in hyping the war under false pretenses (which the paper itself, in its backhanded way, has acknowledged). NYT editors also fought internally AGAINST running any stories that were skeptical of the war or of the administration's statements about Iraq.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  Many mass media corporations were doing everything they could to encourage the war in Iraq, including cancelling popular talk show hosts who dared to ask questions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program
  - pjc50 6y ago
    > Donahue commented in 2007 that the management of MSNBC, owned at the time by General Electric, a major defense contractor, required that "we have two conservative (guests) for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals."[23] Guess the military-industrial complex wins over free speech again.

pjc50 6y ago

> The New York Times falsely claiming that Iraq had WMD This gets brought up absolutely every single time, and I would love someone to link to the original primary historical sources. Their archive is all on the internet; could some committed person find what they actually said? Did they confirm it themselves, or did they just report what government spokespeople said?

solosoyokaze 6y ago
Here's a good analysis: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-coverage https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-cov...
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
They didn't claim to have personally seen the WMDs, but they acknowledged in a 2004 apology (https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th...) that they created a systematically false impression about the veracity of the evidence. The apology includes references to specific articles if you're interested to read them in detail, but the general thread is an uncritical presentation of uncorroborated evidence from sources who had obvious incentives to mislead the public.
dgellow 6y ago
It's more complicated: they repeated lies from the CIA and Bush administration (regarding WMD and the need for an invasion), AND added their own spin on top of this. It's not too different from what they are still doing now. It's always the same: ignore the part you don't like, amplify facts that will suit your needs, then spin your own narrative on top.
jellicle 6y ago
Here's a summary from 2004: https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/ https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/ "During the winter of 2001 and throughout 2002, Miller produced a series of stunning stories about Saddam Hussein’s ambition and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, based largely on information provided by Chalabi and his allies—almost all of which have turned out to be stunningly inaccurate." In short, the Pentagon found a credulous NYT reporter and hooked her up with a succession of fictitious sources, which she ate up and asked for seconds. The NYT repeatedly ran stories on page 1 that were complete fiction, and played a material part in hyping the war under false pretenses (which the paper itself, in its backhanded way, has acknowledged). NYT editors also fought internally AGAINST running any stories that were skeptical of the war or of the administration's statements about Iraq.
loveistheanswer 6y ago
Many mass media corporations were doing everything they could to encourage the war in Iraq, including cancelling popular talk show hosts who dared to ask questions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program
- pjc50 6y ago
  > Donahue commented in 2007 that the management of MSNBC, owned at the time by General Electric, a major defense contractor, required that "we have two conservative (guests) for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals."[23] Guess the military-industrial complex wins over free speech again.