https://twitter.com/RobProvince/status/875368125079879683
Well, well, well … looks like the heat finally got to be too much for the New York Times:
New York Times issues correction to editorial pic.twitter.com/pxNYL3ftGM
— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) June 15, 2017
Here's the before and after of the two paragraphs from the @nytimes editorial pic.twitter.com/n8GJvHSl2C
— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) June 15, 2017
Good thing they waited until long after the worst damage had already been done.
https://twitter.com/LDoren/status/875368722793463808
Worth noting: all NYT readers looking at the print version will still be reading the false version. Just now added. https://t.co/mUcljQsvx2
— Peter J. Hasson (@peterjhasson) June 15, 2017
Glad the Times issued the correction. Does anyone over there want to address how that error/damnable lie got into print?
— Jim Geraghty (@jimgeraghty) June 15, 2017
How did that steaming pile of nonsense make it past their editorial process in the first place? Multiple people must have agreed w/it. https://t.co/0j0Lq2aVNd
— Sarah Rumpf (@rumpfshaker) June 15, 2017
Well @nytimes did issue this… The most basic, minimal retraction possible.
Kind of pathetic. pic.twitter.com/6xTSdqI4PO
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) June 15, 2017
https://twitter.com/cmdeb/status/875368211184721920
https://twitter.com/CuffyMeh/status/875377672528023554
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) June 15, 2017
"What's the least amount of effort we can put into this without putting off our base readership?" https://t.co/DceKTFsui2
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) June 15, 2017
NYT issues a correction to their completely false editorial. They knew this and still wrote it. https://t.co/WrOyitulKX
— Alyssa Canobbio Hackbarth (@AlyssaEinDC) June 15, 2017
Or, translated from NYT-speak: "The entire premise of this editorial is based on a lie, and we regret that you noticed." https://t.co/MaM9g2EIYy
— ?It's?Almost ⛄️Christmas? (@jtLOL) June 15, 2017
Zero chance the editorial board didn't know this before they wrote the piece. Zero. https://t.co/ZObFxT1ngX
— Nick Jacob (@nicktjacob) June 15, 2017
Yep. If anything, the “correction” makes the New York Times look even slimier:
And no, that doesn’t make the editorial okay. It means they’re slightly less likely to be sued.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) June 15, 2017
https://twitter.com/Mattfobrien/status/875368347629748224
https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/875371096673067008
The mere mention of Palin's map is a baseless, bizarre, irrelevant non-sequitur. https://t.co/NhXcIFEjF0
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) June 15, 2017
https://twitter.com/davidharsanyi/status/875370366989991936
It can’t.
The NYT's has made a substantial correction, but it's not good enough. Loughner's crime had NOTHING to do with conventional politics. https://t.co/pAkB67lwRK
— David French (@DavidAFrench) June 15, 2017
https://twitter.com/LDoren/status/875369604465528834
https://twitter.com/DanFosterType/status/875374754391363585
I guess our blood libel was wrong, but we'll just keep it in here anyway just in casehttps://t.co/YxydTABMhm
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) June 15, 2017
This shows that the NY Times is unwilling to face how disingenuous they have been, and continue to be. https://t.co/YcRdzPnqg3
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) June 15, 2017
This remains dishonest and nonsensical with the change. https://t.co/U7GPuTTJvw
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) June 15, 2017
https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/875369649281650689
https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/875369890932293638
https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/875370327462871040
https://twitter.com/JayCaruso/status/875369944434782208
https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/875370535584182272
And after they retract it:
https://twitter.com/CounterMoonbat/status/875369853401616385
https://twitter.com/CounterMoonbat/status/875372232373129216
They certainly shouldn’t get to skate on this.
Oh fuck you, @nytimes. pic.twitter.com/xE4g9F382c
— Princess Consuela Banana-Hammock aka Kimberly (@conkc2) June 15, 2017
Editor’s note: This post has been updated with additional text and tweets.
***
Related:
New York Times determined to find political balance in shootings, even if means reviving old lie
There they go again! NY Times doubles down on post-shooting shamelessness
‘When you’ve lost Chris Hayes’: Does this slam mean NYT leaned WAY too far forward?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member