] But we have found a number of instances of coverage that
] was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some
] cases, information that was controversial then, and seems
] questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed
] to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been
] more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new
] evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge.
...
] It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will
] be unearthed in Iraq, but in this case it looks as if we, along
] with the administration, were taken in. And until now we have not
] reported that to our readers.

The Times -- the NY TIMES -- finally realizes that maybe they were not quite right about the whole Iraq thing. Maybe they have some influence, and perhaps should have questioned their sources, and/or cover the dissenting opinions better