New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan called out her newspaper’s coverage of the violence in Iraq on Saturday, observing that the Times was not giving enough of a platform to anti-war viewpoints.
“Many readers have complained to me that The Times is amplifying the voices of hawkish neoconservatives and serving as a megaphone for anonymously sourced administration leaks, while failing to give voice to those who oppose intervention,” Sullivan said.
Sullivan and an assistant went back and reviewed the paper’s coverage thus far. They found there were many pro-war voices being heard in the paper, but — in their opinion — a serious lack of voices opposing military action.
“On the Op-Ed pages and in the news columns, there have been very few outside voices of those who opposed the war last time, or those who reject the use of force now,” she said. “But the neoconservatives and interventionists are certainly being heard.”
“Now, I hope that the editors — on both the news and opinion sides — will think hard about whose voices and views will get the amplification that comes with being in The Times,” she said. “They owe it to their readers, who are observing their paper closely. You might even say they are watching it like a hawk.”