“With all the hoopla generated by Judith Miller in the pages of the New York Times about corruption in the United Nation’s Iraq Oil For Food program, one could easily have gotten the impression that the UN was massively corrupt,” writes Russ Baker, via Alternet’s PEEK.
But…a recent story on a Princeton professor’s study published, ironically, in the Times: “suggests the Oil for Food program functioned surprisingly well in its task…He further said that for all the criticism it has received, the oil-for-food program did manage to deliver more than $30 billion of humanitarian aid to Iraq, while the country was apparently prevented from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.”
“It’s sooooo interesting to see the Times publish this column, which really does question the accuracy and thrust of Miller’s many articles — and then keep Miller on board with no consequences for the poor quality of her work.” (Baker Muckraker)
Will the NYT ever assess Miller’s horrible track record in her stories? If not, why not?
