The NY Times reports that WMD not found in Iraq

Well, it has taken long enough, but the Times has finally admitted that they, like the Bush administration were duped.

Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. We have examined the failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists. We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves.

[...]

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.

Interestingly, they refer to "reporters" in the plural. In fact, most of the focus has been on Judith Miller, who not only was duped, but was aggressive in defending her easily duped reporting methods, acting as stenographer to any source the administration or the Iraqi National Congress threw her way. Jack Shafer provides much of the background.

But it is also true, as the Times "correction" concludes, that reporters do sometimes get the story wrong. It is then the paper's responsibility to be just as aggressive in correcting those mistakes, getting the story right just as prominently as they were in posting the mistaken article.

The Times has long been too intent on "rushing scoops into the paper." After all, they aren't in a circulation war with The New York Post.