That's one hell of a correction!!! https://t.co/pODXXTJR2L
— EducatédHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) June 15, 2017
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.
Did it go to print first? Damage done.
Like the 1000 RT vs. 10-20 for the correction. https://t.co/l0EJ1jLUx2
— Lee Doren (@LDoren) June 15, 2017
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?
— jimgeraghty (@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 Shanker MD (@Neoavatara) June 15, 2017
kind of a big fuck up but okay https://t.co/sq0fuSiaHt
— Christine (@cmdeb) June 15, 2017
Fucking weeeeeaaaaaak. https://t.co/ILz6ipnEIG
— Cuffy (@CuffyMeh) June 15, 2017
— 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 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
— Jim Treacher (@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
The article is still factually inaccurate. It's not no link was established, it's that the attack was proven specifically apolitical.
— TheOnceandFutureKing (@Mattfobrien) June 15, 2017
Claim that Giffords and others were "put … under stylized cross hairs" is also false. Crosshairs were on districts, not faces. https://t.co/8gmkX9D3Yg
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) June 15, 2017
The mere mention of Palin's map is a baseless, bizarre, irrelevant non-sequitur. https://t.co/NhXcIFEjF0
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) June 15, 2017
no "suck link was established," NYT, because no such link exists. How can the editorial even stand if that is the case?
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) June 15, 2017
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
The *Only* reason for this correction was that liberal reporters responded on twitter. Otherwise, they would have left it up. https://t.co/l0EJ1jLUx2
— Lee Doren (@LDoren) June 15, 2017
New @nytimes: "Did Sarah Palin make Loughner kill nine people? Who's to say?"
— Daniel Foster (@DanFosterType) June 15, 2017
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 Shanker MD (@Neoavatara) June 15, 2017
This remains dishonest and nonsensical with the change. https://t.co/U7GPuTTJvw
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) June 15, 2017
Editorial is still garbage, btw–they still hit Sarah Palin for the crosshairs thing, they just say no direct link established. Worms. https://t.co/armsGmbRLP
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) June 15, 2017
The NYT correction is designed to still implicate Sarah Palin without making themselves liable. The lawyers wrote it. Remains disgusting.
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) June 15, 2017
The NYTimes didn't try to correct the record. They tried to prevent a lawsuit while still getting the record wrong and sliming Palin. Gross.
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) June 15, 2017
The NY Times editorial is still crap. It still implies Palin’s use of targets on a map is somehow, sinister.
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) June 15, 2017
The full NY Times editorial should be retracted. Nothing less is remotely acceptable or deserving of praise.
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) June 15, 2017
And after they retract it:
They should retract the entire editorial and issue a groveling apology that of course Palin should reject. https://t.co/TGASJczYI5
— Luxury Yacht Owner (@CounterMoonbat) June 15, 2017
Palin should sue. Normally I wouldn't say that but there should be consequences for that kind of irresponsible journalism.
— Luxury Yacht Owner (@CounterMoonbat) June 15, 2017
They certainly shouldn’t get to skate on this.
Oh fuck you, @nytimes. pic.twitter.com/xE4g9F382c
— 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?
