NYT admits it fell for fraudelent Abu Ghraib story

Of course, it defends itself by noting that it made sense to trust this man who testified he was the "man in the hood." The Times' alacrity in believing stories from individuals that serve to defame America is the bigger issue. How many articles have been written that have relied on the stories of ONE man with no corroborating evidence to blame America for torture, kidnapping, illegal detainment?

For example, the story of the man "kidnapped" in Germany and taken to an Afghan prison under the rendition practice. Or the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib who complain about conditions there or abuse of the Koran. The same for tales from Palestinians who demonize Israel for purported abuses against them.

The Times gullibly accepts and promotes such propaganda despite evidence that these people may very well been coached to tell these stories as part of a disinformation campaign. More evidence that the NYT is not deserving of its reputation as a paragon of journalism.

Mediacrity has more on the Times' mea culpa:

The New York Times today ate a massive feast of crow, in an embarrassing front—page article and editor's note admitting that it had been suckered by a liar who claimed he was the famous "man in the hood" at Abu Gharib.

But while dining on a smorgasboard of black bird, the Times still doesn't get it. This piece, like an earlier unsigned article on the subject, still doesn't acknowledge the distinct possibility —— if not probability —— that nothing this man said was true and, again, obscuring his motive, which was clearly monetary. He is, after all, suing the government.

There's more. Mediacrity has been all over the story.

Ed Lasky 3 18 06