| Revision as of 07:25, 5 September 2007 editHornplease (talk | contribs)9,260 edits please substantiate your deletions on the talkpage.← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:31, 8 September 2007 edit undoPoiuytrewq4 (talk | contribs)13 edits Undid revision 155793890 by Hornplease (talk)Next edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| | agent = | | agent = | ||
| }}--> | }}--> | ||
| ], ], before the invasion of Iraq in 2003]] | |||
| '''Michael R. Gordon''' is the chief military correspondent for '']'' <ref>Gordon's page at .</ref>. | '''Michael R. Gordon''' is the chief military correspondent for '']'' <ref>Gordon's page at .</ref>. | ||
| He wrote most of ] of the ]'s case for ] in 2002. During the first phase of the ], he was the only newspaper reporter ] with the allied land command under General ], a position that "granted him unique access to cover the invasion strategy and its enactment"<ref name="pbs">"Engdame: Interviews", , 11 January 2007.</ref>. He and General ] have written two books together, including the best-selling '']''. | He wrote most of ] of the ]'s case for ] in 2002. During the first phase of the ], he was the only newspaper reporter ] with the allied land command under General ], a position that "granted him unique access to cover the invasion strategy and its enactment"<ref name="pbs">"Engdame: Interviews", , 11 January 2007.</ref>. He and General ] have written two books together, including the best-selling '']''. | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| ''Cobra II'', which "focuses on the rushed and haphazard preparations for war and the appalling relations between the major players," won praise from ] in '']'', who wrote that "the research is meticulous and properly sourced, the narrative authoritative, the human aspects of conflict never forgotten."<ref>Cobra II, reviewed by Lawrence Freedman, '''', Sep/Oct 2006.</ref> Gordon's paper, the '']'', called it "a work of prodigious research", adding that it "will likely become the benchmark by which other histories of the Iraq invasion are measured." '']'', while calling the book "splendid", wrote that "Gordon and Trainor remain imprisoned in an almost exclusively military analysis of what went wrong...(which)..unintentionally underplays the essential problem in Iraq--the problem of politics." <ref> "Optimism Goes to War", | ''Cobra II'', which "focuses on the rushed and haphazard preparations for war and the appalling relations between the major players," won praise from ] in '']'', who wrote that "the research is meticulous and properly sourced, the narrative authoritative, the human aspects of conflict never forgotten."<ref>Cobra II, reviewed by Lawrence Freedman, '''', Sep/Oct 2006.</ref> Gordon's paper, the '']'', called it "a work of prodigious research", adding that it "will likely become the benchmark by which other histories of the Iraq invasion are measured." '']'', while calling the book "splendid", wrote that "Gordon and Trainor remain imprisoned in an almost exclusively military analysis of what went wrong...(which)..unintentionally underplays the essential problem in Iraq--the problem of politics." <ref> "Optimism Goes to War", | ||
| by David Rieff, , April 12, 2006.</ref> | by David Rieff, , April 12, 2006.</ref> | ||
| ==Coverage of Iraq prior to invasion== | |||
| As one of the journalists, together with ], writing most<ref name="CJR">"Michael Gordon's Molehill Becomes A Mountain" '''', 30 Jan 2007</ref> of the ''Times''' coverage on the ] prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Gordon's articles, among others, were the subject of a ''mea culpa'' Editor's Note <ref>"From the Editors: The Times and Iraq". , 26 May, 2004.</ref> | |||
| published by the paper on its front page in 2004, that said while much of "what we reported was an accurate reflection of the state of our knowledge at the time, much of it painstakingly extracted from intelligence agencies that were themselves dependent on sketchy information", there were a number of instances that were "not as rigorous as it should have been" and that the administration's case "was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged". The Note further said: "Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated." | |||
| Responding to criticism in the ] that "many people challenging the administration's assertions" were not quoted in Gordon and Miller's coverage and that it was "revealing that Gordon encountered so few of them", even after ] "made a special effort to alert Judith Miller to the dissent"<ref>"Now They Tell Us", by ], , Volume 51, Number 3</ref>, Gordon wrote "I stand by my assertion to ] that the notion that Iraq had some form of WMD was a widely shared assumption inside and outside of the government. I made that comment not to excuse any limitations on the part of the media but to paint the context in which American intelligence was prepared and discussed. Mr. Massing takes that assertion out of context, and he cites Mr. Albright's work to challenge that observation though his work actually supports it."<ref>"'Iraq: Now They Tell Us': An Exchange" , Volume 51, Number 6.</ref> | |||
| ==Opinions on ]== | |||
| After an interview with ]' '']'' in January 2007 in the course of which he explicitly supported a ']' in Iraq<ref name="pbs"/>, the then ''Times'' ] reported that "Times editors have carefully made clear their disapproval of the expression of a personal opinion about Iraq on national television by the paper's chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon."<ref>"Spotting Freelancer Conflicts", by ], , 28 January 2007.</ref> Gordon had told ] that "as a purely personal view, I think it's worth ... one last effort for sure to try to get this right. ... I think that there is the chance to accomplish something." <ref name="AJ">"Gray Lady in Winter", by Christopher Griffin, .</ref> The Washington bureau chief of the newspaper said that Gordon had ""stepped over the line on the 'Charlie Rose' show." <ref name="AJ"/> The paper's response and Gordon's subsequent apology led its local ] rival, ]'s '']'' to run an editorial saying that the ''Times'' wished to "squelch any talk of possible victory" and "didn't want America to win in Iraq" <ref>"A ban on 'Victory'", , 4 February 2007.</ref>. | |||
| ==Coverage of Iraqi insurgency== | |||
| Following Gordon's February 10, 2007 front-page story<ref>"Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made by Iran, U.S. Says", </ref> in which he wrote that there was "an increasing body of evidence" that suggested "an Iranian role" in supplying the "deadliest weapon aimed at American troops in Iraq", ] published an examination of the story, stating that since Gordon "on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion" the fact that the sources were all anonymous "civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies" should be viewed with caution<ref>"'NYT' Reporter Who Got Iraqi WMDs Wrong Now Highlights Iran Claims", , 11 February, 2007.</ref>. ], the ''Times''' public editor responded to concerns about the article and its author by stating, first, that "Mr. Gordon has become a favorite target of many critical readers, who charge that the paper's Iran coverage is somehow tainted because he had shared the byline on a flawed Page 1 W.M.D. article. I don't buy that view, and I think the quality of his current journalism deserves to be evaluated on its own merits.", but proceeded to indicate that Gordon's article used anonymous government sources, that the claims reported about Iran "needed some qualification" about whether they were based on evidence or inference and that the reader "deserved a clearer sense" of whether the beliefs reported represented a consensus and that "editors didn't make sure all conflicting views were always clearly reported"<ref> "The Public Editor: Approaching Iran Intelligence With Intelligent Skepticism", by ], , 25 February, 2007.</ref>. | |||
| Calame's successor as public editor, ], criticised the paper's military reports, quoting several articles by Gordon, as slipping "into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically about ]'s role in Iraq," and said that they failed "in using the language of the administration"<ref>"Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every Corner", by ], , 8 July 2007.</ref> that identified ] with ], which Hoyt said was not the consensus opinion on the subject. A report on the subject from ] indicated "E&P and other news outlets last week had noted the same tendency in the Times in the reporting of Michael R. Gordon and others."<ref>" | |||
| 'NYT' Public Editor Hits Paper's Surge in Blaming 'al-Qaeda' in Iraq ", , July 08, 2007 </ref> A major article the following Friday carrying Gordon's byline <ref>"Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert", , July 13, 2007, Friday</ref>, discussed the president's view on Al-Qaeda in Iraq, saying "his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership", leading to puzzlement among some observers <ref>"Pot, Meet Kettle: 'NYT' Hits Bush For Al-Qaeda Claims -- After Public Editor Blamed Paper", , July 13, 2007: "But just last Sunday, Clark Hoyt, the paper's new public editor, had criticized the paper for doing much the same, in increasingly pointing to al-Qaeda influence and failing to point out the distinction between the newly-formed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia group and Osama bin Laden's operation. Gordon had written many of those faulty (in Hoyt's view) stories." | |||
| </ref>. | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 05:31, 8 September 2007
Michael R. Gordon is the chief military correspondent for The New York Times .
He wrote most of that paper's coverage of the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq in 2002. During the first phase of the Iraq war, he was the only newspaper reporter embedded with the allied land command under General Tommy Franks, a position that "granted him unique access to cover the invasion strategy and its enactment". He and General Bernard E. Trainor have written two books together, including the best-selling Cobra II.
As an author
Together with Bernard Trainor, he has written two books: The Generals' War: The Inside Story of the Conflict in the Gulf, which covers the 1991 Gulf War, and Cobra II, which covers the Iraq War begun 2003.
The General's War won high praise from several critics and decisionmakers, with then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney describing it as "a fascinating account of the war" that he would "recommend" "as something that gives them a different element of some of the key decisions that were made." Jim Lehrer described it as "A superb account and analysis of what went right and what went wrong in the Gulf War"; and Eliot Cohen, writing in Foreign Affairs, called it "the best single volume on the Gulf War."
Cobra II, which "focuses on the rushed and haphazard preparations for war and the appalling relations between the major players," won praise from Lawrence D. Freedman in Foreign Affairs, who wrote that "the research is meticulous and properly sourced, the narrative authoritative, the human aspects of conflict never forgotten." Gordon's paper, the New York Times, called it "a work of prodigious research", adding that it "will likely become the benchmark by which other histories of the Iraq invasion are measured." The New Republic, while calling the book "splendid", wrote that "Gordon and Trainor remain imprisoned in an almost exclusively military analysis of what went wrong...(which)..unintentionally underplays the essential problem in Iraq--the problem of politics."
References
- Gordon's page at the New York Times.
- "Engdame: Interviews", WGBH Public Broadcsting, Boston, 11 January 2007.
- "Cobra II", at the Pantheon Books website.
- Cobra II, reviewed by Lawrence Freedman, Foreign Affairs, Sep/Oct 2006.
- "Optimism Goes to War", by David Rieff, The New Republic, April 12, 2006.