Comments on: Today’s NY Times includes barrage of corrections

By: Joshua

Joshua — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:02:51 +0000

In the second sentence of this post, the Times is referred to as “the Time”.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:02:51 +0000

In the second sentence of this post, the Times is referred to as “the Time”.

By: Tara & Christine

Tara & Christine — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:09:31 +0000

@maplestar – that retraction is a doozy too! Wow. I guess it is no wonder that reducing editorial staff would result in less thorough research and more errors. Still, correcting a correction is a sad state of affairs! Especially when the facts were so easily available in the first place. – Tara

By: tim johnson

tim johnson — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:29:20 +0000

Well, well. the ROMANS had no success at all in the 13th century. None. They were, like, moribund. Listless. Passive. Unlifelike.
So, we retract the correction, faster than Michelangelo's David retracted,well, himself, if you know what I mean.
repeat several times, you philistines.

By: maplestar

maplestar — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:21:41 +0000

That correction is a doozy, but I like the correction of last week's correction about Sen. Kennedy:

“An article on Dec. 27 about the death of Edward M. Kennedy in August referred incorrectly to the assassination of his brother President John F. Kennedy, and a correction in this space last Sunday erroneously corrected the length of his tenure in the Senate. The president was assassinated in 1963, the year after Edward Kennedy was elected to the Senate â€” not the same year. And as the article correctly reported, Senator Kennedy served 46 years â€” not 47 as the correction said. (The correction also erred in stating that the length of tenure was incorrect in Mr. Kennedyâ€™s obituary, in two other articles on Aug. 27 and Aug. 28 and in an editorial on Aug. 28. All four correctly reported the tenure as 46 years.)”