A lengthy correction to a front page story in yesterday’s Post:
A Feb. 9
front-page article about a Pentagon inspector general’s report
regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J.
Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to
Feith’s office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability"
and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant
relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by
Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) in October 2004. Similarly, the quotes
stating that Feith’s office drew on "both reliable and unreliable
reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much
stronger than that assessed by the IC [intelligence community] and more
in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the
Administration" were also from Levin’s report. The article also stated
that the intelligence provided by Feith’s office supported the
political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that
the inspector general’s report did not draw.
The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities
of Feith’s office: Levin’s report refers to an "alternative
intelligence assessment process" developed in that office, while an
unclassified summary of the inspector general’s report states that the
office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative
intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which
included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of
the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The summary of
the inspector general’s report further states that Feith’s briefing to
the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did
draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available
intelligence."
Here’s how the story began:
Intelligence provided by former
undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House
case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or
reliability" that supported the political views of senior
administration officials rather than the conclusions of the
intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon’s
inspector general…
As usual, the Post placed the correction at the top of the story online, which is a good thing. But the story itself has not been corrected. This is confusing and difficult because the reader has to keep referring back to the correction to check the origin of certain quotes. So, yes, put the correction at the top of the story — but remember to correct the story as well. Here’s an edited version of the correction, as published in the San Francisco Chronicle:
A Washington Post story about a Pentagon inspector general’s report
regarding the office of former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith,
which appeared Friday, incorrectly attributed some quotations.
References to Feith’s office producing "reporting of dubious quality or
reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a
significant relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida" were from a report
issued by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., in October 2004, as were quotes
stating that Feith’s office drew on "both reliable and unreliable
reporting" to produce a link between al Qaeda and Iraq "that was much
stronger than that assessed by the IC (intelligence community) and more
in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the
Administration." The article also stated erroneously that the
intelligence provided by Feith’s office supported the political views
of senior administration officials.
Here’s what the St. Petersburg Times did with the correction:
A Washington Post story Friday about Iraq intelligence gathering
incorrectly attributed some quotations to a Pentagon inspector
general’s report. A reference to "dubious quality" was from a report
issued by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., in October 2004.
