in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. :)
Audacity of Truth
Marginalizing Terror:
"Why? Whether it’s al Qaeda Central, or two twisted, perverted, cowardly knock-off jihadists here in Boston. Why do they do what they do?”
VP Biden, speaking at the memorial service for slain MIT police offer Sean Collier - 4/24/2013
NYTimes slips up yet again
First, on Saturday we had this headline, which declared boldly:
The opening paragraphs of the article stated:
Lawyers for the Defense Department are refusing to cooperate with a federal judge’s order to release secret photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.
The lawyers said in a letter sent to the federal court in Manhattan late Thursday that they would file a sealed brief explaining their reasons for not turning over the material, which they were to have released by yesterday.
However, a correction has since been posted (on 7/26) at the bottom of the article (emphasis added by me):
Correction: July 26, 2005, Tuesday:
An article on Saturday about a federal judge’s order regarding photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal misstated a deadline and the response by Defense Department lawyers. The government was given until Friday to black out some identifying details in the material, not to release it. Defense Department lawyers met that deadline, but asked the court to block the public release of the materials. They did not refuse to cooperate with an order for the materials’ release.
Well, at least they put the correction on the bottom of the page of the article now, rather than on a seperate “corrections” page that I doubt many people read. I think it’d be better if – in the future – they put the correction underneath the headline though before the body of the article begins, especially considering the correction for this particular piece directly contradicts the headline. I really wish they could get their stories straight the FIRST time around.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Ah, but if they actually did any fact-checking prior to running this particular story, they would not have had a story to run in the first place. The original story was that the Adminstration was not complying with the Court. However, as the correction notes, the Government was complying with the court, and was seeking to ensure that classified information wasn’t leaked.
Big difference that only a close reading of the Times’ corrections section (or the blogosphere) would divulge.
Imagine that. Doing fact checking *before* writing a story? Seems like an outdated concept these days.
“However, as the correction notes, the Government was complying with the court, and was seeking to ensure that classified information wasn’t leaked.”
Not quite. The govt is saying that the documents they’re supposed to redact shouldn’t be released at all. They’re fighting the order to redact and release.
Even if so, that doesn’t change the fact that the NYTimes bungled this story big time.