- News>
- Newspapers
A `scoop` that never was: The Hindu
London, June 07: While across the Atlantic, The New York Times is struggling to regain credibility after a damaging plagiarism scandal, here one of Britain`s most respected newspapers, The Guardian, is facing humiliation after being forced to apologise for a scoop that never was.
London, June 07: While across the Atlantic, The New York Times is struggling to regain credibility after a damaging plagiarism scandal, here one of Britain's most respected newspapers, The Guardian, is facing humiliation after being forced to apologise for a scoop that never was.
In a sensational lead story last week, which created quite a stir in London and Washington and was picked up by the media around the world, The Guardian claimed that the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and his U.S. counterpart, Colin Powell, had a `secret' meeting at the Waldorf Hotel in New York in February at which they expressed "serious doubts'' about the reliability of intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
It said the rendezvous took place a day before the crucial February 5 meeting of the U.N. Security Council at which both Gen. Powell and Mr. Straw made a forceful case for disarming Saddam Hussein, using the very intelligence whose reliability they doubted. The report, by its high-profile security affairs writer, Dan Plesch, went on to say that the transcripts of the Straw-Powell conversation, dubbed the "Waldorf transcripts'', were `freely' circulating in NATO `circles'.
It has now emerged that there was no such meeting. After sticking by its story for a week despite denials by the Foreign Office, The Guardian admitted on Thursday that it had goofed. In an abject apology, it said: "Mr. Straw has now made clear that no such meeting took place. The paper accepts that and apologises for suggesting it did.''
But unlike the New York Times, no heads are likely to roll at The Guardian, though its high moral tone is bound to suffer. Experts said the case raised questions about standards of professionalism even in the best of western newspapers, seen as a model by the Third World press. It was also likely to be seized by the Government which, in the past week, has attacked the media for publishing a series of `unsourced' stories accusing the Prime Minister's office of doctoring intelligence about Iraqi weapons.
``The Guardian episode would only strengthen the Government's claim that the press is out to undermine it,'' one media observer said.
The embarrassment, however, did not prevent The Guardian from gleefully reporting the humiliation of New York Times editors.
It said the rendezvous took place a day before the crucial February 5 meeting of the U.N. Security Council at which both Gen. Powell and Mr. Straw made a forceful case for disarming Saddam Hussein, using the very intelligence whose reliability they doubted. The report, by its high-profile security affairs writer, Dan Plesch, went on to say that the transcripts of the Straw-Powell conversation, dubbed the "Waldorf transcripts'', were `freely' circulating in NATO `circles'.
It has now emerged that there was no such meeting. After sticking by its story for a week despite denials by the Foreign Office, The Guardian admitted on Thursday that it had goofed. In an abject apology, it said: "Mr. Straw has now made clear that no such meeting took place. The paper accepts that and apologises for suggesting it did.''
But unlike the New York Times, no heads are likely to roll at The Guardian, though its high moral tone is bound to suffer. Experts said the case raised questions about standards of professionalism even in the best of western newspapers, seen as a model by the Third World press. It was also likely to be seized by the Government which, in the past week, has attacked the media for publishing a series of `unsourced' stories accusing the Prime Minister's office of doctoring intelligence about Iraqi weapons.
``The Guardian episode would only strengthen the Government's claim that the press is out to undermine it,'' one media observer said.
The embarrassment, however, did not prevent The Guardian from gleefully reporting the humiliation of New York Times editors.