The virtual apology issued in the editorial page of The New York Times for not being harder in its inquiries leading up to the Iraq War is interesting:

...we do fault ourselves for failing to deconstruct the W.M.D. issue with the kind of thoroughness we directed at the question of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or even tax cuts in time of war. We did not listen carefully to the people who disagreed with us. Our certainty flowed from the fact that such an overwhelming majority of government officials, past and present, top intelligence officials and other experts were sure that the weapons were there. We had a groupthink of our own....

Saddam Hussein was indisputably a violent and vicious tyrant, but an unprovoked attack that antagonized the Muslim world and fractured the international community of peaceful nations was not the solution. There were, and are, equally brutal and potentially more dangerous dictators in power elsewhere. Saddam Hussein and his rotting army were not a threat even to the region, never mind to the United States....

What other profession or business would issue such a statement without being under the thumb of either the court or its bankers? Whatever you think of the content of the position taken by the NYT - either initially or now - having a voice that speaks with few fetters, even its own, is one of the great things in western society.