February 24, 2006
The New York Times
declared on its website early Friday in a headline that the U.S.
ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, had warned to U.S. was on the
"precipice of full-scale civil war." Their headline? "U.S. Envoy in
Baghdad Says Iraq Is on Brink of Civil War."
Within an hour and without explanation, the Times yanked the headline in favor of "U.S. Envoy Says Sectarian Violence Threatens Iraq's Future."
Originally, their lead paragraph had read: "The American ambassador
to Iraq said Friday that the country was on the precipice of full-scale
civil war, and that Iraqi leaders would have to come together and
compromise if they wanted to save their homeland."
An hour later: "The American ambassador to Iraq said Friday that
sectarian violence this week had endangered the future of Iraq, and
that Iraqi leaders would have to come together and compromise if they
wanted to save their homeland."
Catherine Mathis, the New York Times Company's Vice President for
Corporate Communications, did not immediately return a call seeking
comment.
Later in the morning, the Times changed the story
again to reflect the relative calm that cloaked Baghdad in the day
after a rash of bombings: "As Violence Ebbs, U.S. Envoy Warns of Danger
to Iraq's Future."
They still, however, offered no accounting for how Iraq went from
the "precipice of civil war" to "endangered" based on the same remarks
by a U.S. ambassador.
