Uncorrected

The NYT's pattern of non-corrections is revealing.

Here, we pointed to the overwhelming evidence that the NYT was incorrect when it asserted that Saddam was not training terrorists. Furthermore, I wrote the NYT about the matter, so it should have been aware of its error. Yet no correction was forthcoming.

Here, the widely-read Durham-In-Wonderland blog pointed to numerous inaccuracies in and critical omissions from the NYT's lengthy front-page story about the Duke Lacrosse case. Collectively, these omissions and falsehoods made it appear to a reader of the article that the prosecution might have a case. This was false. Again, the NYT must have known that its reporting was incorrect, as numerous people wrote it about the issue. Yet it did not correct its errors -- and even later claimed that its coverage of the case "generally fairly reported both sides".

Here, Countercolumn wrote about the NYT's false assertion that the Surge did not make Iraq safer for American troops. Again, we know that the NYT was aware of its error, because as Countercolumn discusses, the author wrote to Countercolumn that he saw nothing to correct.

To summarize:

Three times, the NYT printed something that was out and out false. We are not talking about matters of opinion -- but rather about indisputably incorrect factual statements.

All three times, the NYT was made aware of its error.

Yet on none of the three occasions did the NYT correct itself. Furthermore, on two of the three occasions, the NYT or one of its employees explicitly examined the issue and declined to find fault on the part of the NYT.