Several posts here have suggested that the NY Times is not to be trusted when it comes to news and commentary on the US war in Iraq. Has NY Times coverage always been biased against the war? Let’s look at opinion and news pieces published in early 2003.

First off, the Times prominent columnist, Thomas Friedman, was a big cheerleader of the war. Though he disliked Bush’s unilateralism, he said this on the day the invasion began:

This column has argued throughout this debate that removing Saddam Hussein and helping Iraq replace his regime with a decent, accountable government that can serve as a model in the Middle East is worth doing — not because Iraq threatens us with its weapons, but because we are threatened by a collection of failing Arab-Muslim states, which churn out way too many young people who feel humiliated, voiceless and left behind. We have a real interest in partnering with them for change.
“D-Day,” 19 March 2003: Section A; Column 5; Editorial Desk; Pg. 29.

The Times published other op-eds that were more supportive than critical of the war, such as this by a Brookings Institute analyst, Michael O’Hanlon:

There tends to be a period of public impatience in modern wars, with Kosovo and Afghanistan being recent examples. Now we are going through our period of impatience, if not downright pessimism, during this operation. But the main elements of the strategy are sound, and the enemy is still basically weak. This war will cost a price in lives, and the administration should have done a better job to prepare the country for that sober fact. But it will be won, and won decisively.
“And Now, the Good News” 28 March 2003: Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 17

The New York Times editorialized against Russian arms sales to the Saddam regime (”Supplying the Enemy,” 29 March 2003: ection A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 10), and issued comments that were more just musings than hard opinion, such as:

Although blinding sandstorms and fierce attacks from paramilitary forces have slowed allied progress, American forces are headed toward their first major land battle against Saddam Hussein’s best troops, the Republican Guard. Just when or where the battle will occur is not yet clear, but its outcome may tell us how long and difficult this campaign will be, and how effective the daring American war strategy of a swift advance deep into Iraq will prove in practice.
“En Route to the First Big Battle” 27 March 2003 Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 22

As for news coverage, there are a host of stories that paint the US war in a neutral or even positive light. For example, Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt reported on the US military’s humanitarian concerns got in the way of effective tactics:

The military mission calls for coalition forces to topple Saddam Hussein and rid his nation of any weapons of mass destruction that may be hidden there. At the same time, the war plan calls for leaving as much Iraqi infrastructure as possible standing to ease postwar reconstruction, and to minimize civilian deaths in order to quiet angry public opinion.

As the war enters its second week, however, military affairs experts ponder whether more indiscriminate bombing might, in the end, hasten victory and save the lives of American troops, and even spare more Iraqis the pain of a grinding ground war.

“We decided we would restrain the use of air power for reasons of humanity and world image,” said Loren Thompson, an air power expert at the Lexington Institute, a policy research center here. “We have imposed a burden on our campaign plan that may slow down victory and diminish the quality of the victory we achieve.
“A NATION AT WAR: AIR OFFENSIVE; American Planners Stick With the Scalpel Instead of the Bludgeon” 27 March 2003: Section B; Column 1; Foreign Desk; Pg. 7

Or Times reporters tried to answer straightforward questions like “What level of casualties does the White House think the American public will tolerate?” Todd Purdum asked White House officials, military analysts, and historians for their views and put them together in an article. Standard journalism, and hardly propaganda. (”A NATION AT WAR: THE CASUALTIES; Delicate Calculus of Casualties and Public Opinion” 27 March 2003: Section B; Column 3; National Desk; Pg. 1)

Finally, as described in Hubris, by Micahael Isikoff and David Corn, some New York Times coverage fed the frenzy for war. Cheney used Times reporters Michael Gordon and Judith Miller as conduits for flawed intelligence about ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and Saddam’s WMD programs (Hubris, Three Rivers Press, 2007: 34-36).

Of course you can find opinions against the war in the New York Times, and news that that exposed problems in the war, or that was critical of the war (especially as time goes on and the war goes badly). It is a liberal paper. But dismissing any and all Times coverage is just not warranted.

I’ve commited that error in my reaction to the Washington Times, and will try to apply this point to myself.