More incredible BS from the New York Times
The New York Times ran this humiliating correction today,
The Op-Ed page in some copies yesterday carried an incorrect version of an article about military recruitment. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, "Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday," nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a "surprise tour of Iraq." That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error.
Michael Barone send an email to Instapundit,
I have one or two unanswered questions about the New York Times opinion
editor adding two sentences to Phil Carter's opinion article.
(1) Is the editor still working at the Times?
(2) If so, why?
Adding these sentences is totally irresponsible journalism. It is particularly offensive when it attributes these sentences to Carter who seems, from my reading of his work, to be very thoughtful and creative. If the current editors of the New York Times want to convince us that they're trying to run a fair newspaper, they could make some progress toward that goal by firing the editor responsible. I worked on the editorial page at the Washington Post under Meg Greenfield. She also edited the opinion pages. I have a fairly good idea of what she would have thought of this. But perhaps Gail Collins has different standards.
I've never had an editor try to do anything like that to one of my pieces, but I've gotten emails from other people who've had similar experiences. My advice to editors who want to publish their own ideas under another name: Get a blog!
Bill Quick at Daily Pundit,
The only thing you need to decipher this bit of self-aggrandizing code masquerading as a "correction" is to ask yourself, "An editor added these statements in quotes? Why? And they were supposed to be "removed" before the piece was printed? Why add the false quotes in the first place, then?
The answer is obvious: The NYT is institutionally biased toward the antiwar, anti-Bush left, and that bias is expressed even by its editors, who add lies to what they print for no other reason than to move their biased leftish agenda forward.
I think it is time to ask this of the paper of record,
Has it actually gotten worse under editor Bill Keller?
Did you ever think in your wildest dreams that you would harken back to the balanced coverage of the Howell Raines era?