TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

NYT: We Made Big Mistakes On Front-Page Gitmo Story, But We Did Not Get Spun

The New York Times has published a lengthy "Editors' Note" rolling back key claims in its front-page story on Guantanamo "recidivism" last month, and the paper's Washington bureau chief concedes it wouldn't have been a Page 1 story if the paper realized the errors in the story when it ran.

"It's something that we thought we needed to explain to readers to amplify the story and to correct something we got wrong," Dean Baquet, NYT Washington bureau chief, told TPMmuckraker.

Baquet added that, given the factual errors, "I'm not sure it would have led the paper" but still believes that the piece was "a legitimate news story."

Responding to critics, Baquet said: "I don't think it's a mistake that's comparable to Iraq or the pre-war buildup. I think that's ridiculous. I think that's a ludicrous and politicized comparison. I think we made a mistake and we owned up to it."

The original story declared: "1 In 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds." But the story, which ran on the front of the print edition on May 21, was changed online to "Later Terror Link Cited for 1 in 7 Freed Detainees."

TPMmuckraker originally flagged the story's questionable use of "recidivism" and underlying issues about the Pentagon's numbers.

The editors' note, which is pasted in full below, acknowledges use of terms like "rejoined" and "recidivism" "accepted a premise of the report that all the former prisoners had been engaged in terrorism before their detention."

The original formulation of the story -- that one in seven detainees had "returned" to jihad -- was endlessly repeated on cable, picked up on right-wing blogs, and even cited more than once by Dick Cheney.

McClatchy and others have reported on evidence that some detainees may have in fact been radicalized while imprisoned at Gitmo.

The editors' note also acknowledges the story "conflated two categories of former prisoners" -- which were broken up into suspected and confirmed categories in the Pentagon report (which we have posted here). The confirmed category in the Pentagon report claims that just one in 20, not one in seven, former detainees returned to terrorism.

Times Standards Editor Craig Whitney tells TPMmuckraker that this second issue prompted the editors' note.

"There's been a lot of discussion about the article online and elsewhere. So we went back and reexamined it and asked the reporter about it, and found out she had not made this distinction, which struck us as significant enough to do an editor's note," Whitney said.

Baquet says the problems were made by editors, not the reporter, Elisabeth Bumiller. "This is not a reflection on Elisabeth," he said. "I think she is just a terrific reporter."

"I don't think we got spun or used," Baquet added. "It was a reporter that was aggressively trying to get the report. It wasn't leaked to us by someone who was trying to torpedo the administration."

Whitney previously had defended the paper's not running a correction, and Baquet defended the substance of the story.

Here's the full editors' note:

A front-page article and headline on May 21 reported findings from an unreleased Pentagon report about prisoners who have been transferred abroad from the American detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The article said that the Pentagon had found about one in seven of former Guantánamo prisoners had "returned to terrorism or other militant activity," or as the headline put it, had "rejoined jihad."

Those phrases accepted a premise of the report that all the former prisoners had been engaged in terrorism before their detention. Because that premise remains unproved, the day the article appeared in the newspaper, editors changed the headline and the first paragraph on the Times Web site to refer to prisoners the report said had engaged in terrorism or militant activity since their release.

The article and headline also conflated two categories of former prisoners. In the Pentagon report, 27 former Guantánamo prisoners were described as having been confirmed as engaging in terrorism, with another 47 suspected of doing so without substantiation. The article should have distinguished between the two categories, to say that about one in 20 of former Guantánamo prisoners described in the Pentagon report were now said to be engaging in terrorism. (The larger share -- about one in seven --applies to the total number described in the report as confirmed or suspected of engaging in terrorism.)


25 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

So how does Bumiller come out as a "great reporter" when she misrepresented the content of the report got access to?

user-pic

Here is the logic?

Reporters seek out sources.
She got a source.
Reporters are essentially stenographers.
She did a great job of stenography when she reported what her source told her.
Therefore she is a great reporter.


Great reporters doubt their sources, get confirmation, seek conflicting information. Maybe she's done that in the past?

user-pic

Interesting:

The NYT claims they were not "spun" on this story.

Wouldn't that imply that they knew the facts were incorrect and deliberately ran them in the story anyway?

Their explanations make them look even worse that they looked before those explanations.
.

user-pic

Bumiller is infamous for the unquestioning stenography of her "Letters From the Whitehouse". The woman never asked a hard question or followup in her life.

user-pic

More to the point:

She "gets" the report (Heaven forbid we should say it was "leaked"; she just knew that "unreleased" report was buried somewhere, and she made it her life's work to rip it out of the bowels of the Pentagon, at great personal risk. Or something. Okay, for the sake of argument, we'll buy that...).

The report clearly states that almost half of prisoners in Gitmo are likely there for no Earthly reason. 27 out of 47 were there on "suspicion" of terrorism; the other 20? [crickets].

Her take? No reason to indicate that all prisoners cited to underscore the very premise of the report clearly were not terrorists. Nothing to see here.

I love Baquet's heartwarming defense of this brave, gumshoe "journalist". Not only was what she did acceptable initially, but no editor so much as raised an eyebrow at this article, on its way to the presses. Jesus H. Christ, high school newspapers in Kansas have stricter fucking standards.

user-pic

Bumiller always faithfully reports whatever the right wingers in government tell her to report. It takes a great reporter to do that. An average reporter would check the facts first, and report on the actual facts, but Bumiller is too great to do that. I see a Pulitzer in her future!

user-pic

Geez, Bush would have given her a Medal of Honor!

user-pic

Corrections should have to be published on the same page the original article appeared on. If this was a front-page above the fold story originally (as it was) then the correction should be front page and above the fold.

user-pic

I agree entirely. Sometimes when I read the corrections column I feel the item should be front page news, and yes this correction should be writ large on page one.

user-pic

Notice how by the end of the "correction" they have dropped the phrase "or militant activity" and just say "engaging in terrorism"? All the number games aside, it would be nice if someone would define what the Pentagon considers "militant activity" (inflammatory newsletters? demonstrations?).

user-pic

I believe the Pentagon considers anyone who disagrees with its policies, methods, facts, etc. — in short, anyone who doesn't blindly "support our troops" (meaning exhibit complete fealty to the Pentagon) — and has the temerity to disagree with it, is considered guilty of "militant activity" and, thus, "engaging in terrorism." This is, in part, what makes those pesky Quaker peaceniks so God damned dangerous.

user-pic

Oh, my! And I teach at a Friends school!

user-pic

Sounds like "material support" to me. Wanna turn yourself in or wait for the Homeland Security Police to break down your door and drag you away?

user-pic

Yr point about the "& miscellaneous" bit is a great big glaring detail for them NOT to address as part of the correction...that 'hanging chad' of a question screams out for answering once the validity of recidivist-headcounting is in play.

Honest to christ...Bumiller and the NYT should explain their take on how much credence the pentagon is to be granted on this kind of stuff to begin with. It's crystal-clear in its face that this sort of "research" could only be thick with fuzzy math and guesstimation.

Sheesh.

user-pic

What I personally hate most about The New York Times:

It is used as a cover for the right to assail "liberalism". The Times is an ongoing monument to Truly Lousy Journalism; they gave us Judith Miller, Elizabeth Bumiller... and on the non-political side, Jayson Blair and Janet Cooke, cited almost daily by somebody on the right, as Exhibit A of why The Librul New York Times is a just plain bad newspaper.

So here we have the right, attacking "liberalism" as being the paper with the neocon assets which sets the discourse by polluting the data; and, as if that weren't enough, it's a paper so lousy that it even has fraudulent (and totally indefensible) con artists working for it.

And all that mud somehow lands on "liberalism".

I say we officially fire the New York Times as our librul spokesmodel.

user-pic

Just for the record, it was The Washington Post that gave us Janet Cooke.

user-pic

Let's not forget Michael Gordon, who deserves a front-and-center spot in the pantheon of Great New York Times Reporters. Credit where it's due. :)

user-pic

You are right, GB. This is the pesky conflation, not conflating two categories of detainees.

Would joining in a class action against the U.S. for wrongful arrest constitute "militant activity"? How about media interviews about abuse at Gitmo? Attending a "militant" mosque?

Not to suggest that I am not in sympathy with any ex-detainees who are actively resisting the illegal invasion of their homeland, whether it continues earlier activities or reflects a new militancy they learned through experience.

user-pic

The biggest problem is that, next time, they'll do the same thing.

user-pic

It got to the point where I couldn't read Bumiller without wondering how many nicknames W. had given her. I mean, that girl was/is one loyal, hard-working stenographer. As was Frank Bruni, who was the NYT's official White House stenographer before Bumiller. Bruni covered W's campain in 2000, followed him to the White House and in 2002 wrote 'Ambling into History', a fawning, breathless account of W., now available for one cent plus shipping from multiple sellers on Amazon. Which indicates how the market and history have judged the worth of Bruni's work.

Bumiller and Bruni were two reasons why I stopped subscribing to the NYT after almost 20 years. Of course, it wasn't just them---I don't want to ignore Judith Miller, Jeff Gerth, Kit Seeyle, Jodi Wilogren (AKA Shamu), Adam Nagourney and others, many of whom either won or were nominated for the Pulitzer.

In short, the latest "spin" Baquet is trying to walk back is hardly a slip-up. It's part of a long, long pattern.

user-pic

This just sucks...My faith in MSM has been completely shattered!

user-pic

I'm giving the Times $700 a year and I get crap.

Who's the biggest boob? Yep, me.

user-pic

This whole thing has me wondering, If I were a liberal think tank back office planner, who 2 years ago confessed to whacking a televangelist over the head with a big peace sign while yelling "jesus freak motherf*@ker", would my history of mental illness win me empathy and acceptance from the otherwise raucous, irreverent posters on little green footballs and instapundit?

user-pic

The New York Times is a joke. The yawning gap between its reputation and performance makes it the worst newspaper in the United States. The day the Times publishes its last issue will be a good day for journalism and a better day for truth-seeking Americans.

user-pic

бляяяя.... я вот все прочел но нифига не понял.
я бы вот хотел узнать где можно Big Mistake музыкальную нруппу скачать.
если это вообще возможно.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address