In sum, too willing to believe government claims — about anything.

This fault is illustrated, in this case, with The New York Times reporting on Iraq. The paper’s public editor Hoyt Clark finds the Times has been far too willing to roll with the Bush administration’s neat and tidy insistence that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is the main troublemaker in Iraq. Facts on the ground suggest otherwise.

Hoyt’s column next prompted author Glen Greenwald, a Bush critic, to flip out:

And most significantly of all, Hoyt’s criticisms are grounded not in a technical violation of some petty rule or failure to adhere to some debatable journalistic custom, but rather, involve the worst journalistic sin of all: namely, a failure to treat government claims with skepticism and a willingness mindlessly to recite such claims without scrutiny. If a newspaper simply prints government claims without skepticism, what remote value does it have other than as a propaganda amplifier? None.

The worst journalistic sin of all: namely, a failure to treat government claims with skepticism and a willingness mindlessly to recite such claims without scrutiny. Hmmm, what local government claims — fantastic ones — have been repeated as fact by the local daily paper?

If a newspaper simply prints government claims without skepticism, what remote value does it have other than as a propaganda amplifier? Good question.

Of course, Greenwald expects too much from the Times — all journalists, really. They cannot sit in a God’s eye position and hand down The Truth to the great unwashed. This presumption starts us off on the hunt for Authority, which quickly turns to a need for Access, while the common-sense facts of a matter are left in ditch.

And that is how you end up reporting that a small splinter group is the main U.S. foe in Iraq. Or that the end of $70 million a year in revenue — which only costs median Charlotte families $40 a year — will result in the loss of police and fire protection.