The New York Times, which published a mea culpa [3] on May 26 for its flawed reporting that helped promote war fever against Iraq [4], has now published a second, harder-hitting self-criticism by Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent. "The failure was not individual, but institutional," Okrent writes. "War requires an extra standard of care, not a lesser one. But in The Times's WMD coverage, readers encountered some rather breathless stories built on unsubstantiated 'revelations' that, in many instances, were the anonymity-cloaked assertions of people with vested interests. Times reporters broke many stories before and after the war - but when the stories themselves later broke apart, in many instances Times readers never found out. ... Other stories pushed Pentagon assertions so aggressively you could almost sense epaulets sprouting on the shoulders of editors. ... The aggressive journalism that I long for, and that the paper owes both its readers and its own self-respect, would reveal not just the tactics of those who promoted the WMD stories, but how The Times itself was used to further their cunning campaign."