Comments on: NYTimes slips up yet again

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:14:47 +0000

Even if so, that doesn’t change the fact that the NYTimes bungled this story big time.

By: actus

actus — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:11:05 +0000

“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.

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:43:49 +0000

Imagine that. Doing fact checking *before* writing a story? Seems like an outdated concept these days.

By: lawhawk

lawhawk — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:31:13 +0000

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.