Stephen Glover

Isn’t it time British papers apologised for being wrong about WMD?

Isn’t it time British papers apologised for being wrong about WMD?

issue 19 June 2004

Unlike British newspapers, the New York Times enjoys beating its breast. It recently published a lengthy ‘editor’s note’ which acknowledged that its coverage in the months before the invasion of Iraq ‘was not as rigorous as it should have been’. The paper conceded that ‘articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display’ while other articles that called the original ones into question were ‘sometimes buried’. Many people may regard this apology as pompous and rather absurd. But if a newspaper gives the impression that weapons of mass destruction existed in profusion, and posed a deadly threat to the West, should it not apologise when it becomes clear that they did not?

In comparison with some British newspapers, the New York Times was reasonably balanced in setting out the case for the existence of WMD. It did not state as certain fact in its editorials day after day that WMD constituted a real and present danger which did not merely justify but also necessitated invading Iraq.

Get Britain's best politics newsletters

Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.

Already a subscriber? Log in

Comments

Join the debate for just £1 a month

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.

Already a subscriber? Log in