The New York Times today had a healthy and unusual article (free registration required) about its own coverage of the Iraq war.
“Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.”
Some parts of the coverage the paper is not happy with, and that includes for example trusting sources like Ahmad Chalabi or people close to him.
“The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on “regime change” in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks.”
A sample of the coverage is online at nytimes.com/critique.