They played a large role in selling the war to the public (manufacturing consent).

When the state is lying, it is not easy for reporters to find out that they are lying. They printed what was at the time a bipartisan consensus which had formed on the basis of lies.

So I guess they were involved, but the journalists in the organization in the time did not have the power or the information to swim against the currents of what was happening. Even if they had shut down their paper, we would have gone to war with Iraq.

On the other hand, Parler has purposefully created a space for people to plan violence against the state, and refused requests to be more careful about moderating.

> They printed what was at the time a bipartisan consensus which had formed on the basis of lies.

And that is why truth by consensus is not a good way for a reporter to report compared to actually investigating somethng beforehand.

Have you ever seen anyone seriously defend what Judith Miller (et al.) actually did?

Reframing pointing out hypocrisy as "whataboutism" is the greatest trick the devil ever pulled.

Every tiny paradox or inconsistency can be reframed as hypocrisy, to the point where that term has lost its meaning.

Maybe.

But all humans are self-serving hypocrites, it is in our nature.