The new part is the lack of shame. Nobody is withdrawing stories that have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been incorrect. The transition from professional to propagandist has meant that admitting mistakes isn't a point of pride, but a point of weakness.
They just move on, and act like the thing that they were haranguing the country about 24 hours a day last year is old news that you should get over in order to pay attention to the new thing that they demand you trust them about but offer no evidence or argument for, other than "anonymous administration officials", quotes from politicians and ex-generals, statements from lobbyists, and insane-sounding spokespeople for nonprofits indirectly funded by the government or entities that have a direct interest in the outcome.
edit: The NYT has always been somewhat of an exception to this, because they actually did think of themselves as "the" newspaper of record, and know that they will be graded retroactively on actual lies. But the only person punished for Iraq was Judith Miller. The lesson was that there are no consequences for lying continuously, the consequences come from admitting it.
The Times, at least a few years back, had a quite frequent habit of using phrases such as "sources say" or "according to sources" or "people familiar with the matter." It wasn't always like that.
Some of that is fine as people sometimes would like to remain anonymous and have the trust of the publication, journalist, and readers. Sure, many touchy stories are important and people can give quotes on background. But that can't become a consistent habit without, at some point, providing better attribution when a string of stories bear some relation.
I've cut back on the Times for the most part due to my issues with "sources say," but maybe they've improved.
They just move on, and act like the thing that they were haranguing the country about 24 hours a day last year is old news that you should get over in order to pay attention to the new thing that they demand you trust them about but offer no evidence or argument for, other than "anonymous administration officials", quotes from politicians and ex-generals, statements from lobbyists, and insane-sounding spokespeople for nonprofits indirectly funded by the government or entities that have a direct interest in the outcome.
edit: The NYT has always been somewhat of an exception to this, because they actually did think of themselves as "the" newspaper of record, and know that they will be graded retroactively on actual lies. But the only person punished for Iraq was Judith Miller. The lesson was that there are no consequences for lying continuously, the consequences come from admitting it.