We regret the inadvertent publication of the article titled “Shia-Sunni reconciliation” by Saleem Ali in our print edition of December 9, 2011 and subsequently on our website.
The article was published without exercising proper editorial judgment. We apologise for the mistake and to our readers whose religious sentiments were hurt. We will not be taking any more articles from this writer. The article has been removed from the website Link

The same apology appeared on Pakistan News Today. Here’s where the offending article originally appeared. It’s now a 404 page, though Google news has this excerpt:

For example, Maulana Ishaq’s sermons on Shia-Sunni unity (given in Urdu), which have hundreds of thousands of hits on YouTube, are heartening. They discourage Shias from hurling abuse but also admonish Sunnis from being emotional about respect and …

I contacted Saleem Ali, the author, for additional details and he said he objects to the removal of the piece. Ali is a professor of environmental studies at the University of Vermont. From his email reply to me:

This was a case of being bullied by some religious zealots who kept calling any criticism of ritual “hate speech.”
While some language was insensitive and i apologized for that — it was by no means “hate speech.” I dont approve of their decision to remove but can understand it in Pakistan’s tough media environment.
You will note the comments under the retraction that majority of readers did not think it should be removed.
I reposted the article on my blog — with an image to show the kind of ritual I was criticizing and also a preface with context and apology for the particular word usage.

He offered additional detail on his blog, writing that the piece “was a test of free speech in Pakistan and it is clear that the country is still stuck in a time warp of religious hypersensitivity.” Also from his post (emphasis his):

In the rush to write we can all be sometimes negligent and I recognize that the choice of words in describing some of the rituals was insensitive but certainly not hateful. To show due respect and in a spirit of amity I have removed the language which described the state of the mourners in the procession as “high on testosterone” (and God knows what else).” In retrospect this was indeed an inappropriate statement and I apologize unconditionally for use of that statement.

Ali told me via email that “this became an issue of personal safety as well.” He said he was subject to verbal attacks on Twitter, had his Wikipedia page vandalized, and that some people wrote letters to the president of his university to try to get Ali fired.

“The university of course realized that these accusations were baseless and actually offered me police protection (not that I need it in Vermont!),” he said. “However, given the high rates of kidnappings of writers in Pakistan such bullying and defamation is a serious issue. I have family in Pakistan and this has caused us sleepless nights for the past few days.”

Update Deceber 13, 2011: Ali also wrote about the incident for the website of Foreign Policy.

The Associated Press has withdrawn the 12th and 13th Ld-Writethrus of its story about the Natalie Wood investigation. The story quoted Christopher Walken telling Washington, D.C. sports talk radio station ESPN980 about his recollections from the night that Wood died. The station now says that it was a hoax involving a station employee who was impersonating Walken.

That employee impersonates Walken on a weekly basis*, meaning there was no intent to deceive. A report from TBD offers some background:

Marc Sterne, who goes by Nigel on ESPN 980′s The Tony Kornheiser Show, impersonates Christopher Walken on the program every week. When he did so this morning, and made up details about Natalie Wood’s drowning death in 1981 (at which the real Walken was present), an Associated Press reporter believed what he was hearing and the wire service published a report about it.

*Correction November 21, 2011: This post originally misspelled Walken as Walkin. Twice. A very lazy error on my part. Thanks to Rogerogreen for spotting the mistakes.

Statements made in my column, ‘Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction’ of October 28, do not represent the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the column was not authorized for publication as is required policy for staff of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The teaching of Sacred Scripture and of the Catechism of the Catholic Church make it clear that all persons are created in the image and likeness of God and have inviolable dignity. Likewise, the Church proclaims the sanctity of marriage as the permanent, faithful, fruitful union of one man and one woman. The Church opposes, as I do too, all unjust discrimination and the violence against persons that unjust discrimination inspires. I deeply apologize for the hurt and confusion that this column has caused.

Here’s the editor’s note from the Pilot that accompanied the retraction/apology:

Editor’s Note: Daniel Avila issued the following “Retraction/Apology” Nov. 2 in regard to his opinion piece “Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction” which was published in our Oct. 28 edition. In addition to echoing Mr. Avila’s statement of regret, The Pilot also wishes to apologize for having failed to recognize the theological error in the column before publication. The Pilot has removed the column ‘Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction’from its Website.

Blaming it on an overlooked “theological error” strikes me as an unsatisfying explanation.

The Boston Globe highlighted the offending passages:

In the column, Avila says “the scientific evidence of how same-sex attraction most likely may be created provides a credible basis for a spiritual explanation that indicts the devil.’’

It also says “disruptive imbalances in nature that thwart encoded processes point to supernatural actors who, unlike God, do not have the good of persons at heart.’’ It says that when “natural causes disturb otherwise typical biological development, leading to the personally unchosen beginnings of same-sex attraction, the ultimate responsibility, on a theological level, is and should be imputed to the evil one, not God.’’

Hat tip to the Washington Post.

Please be advised that the Oct 27 Moscow story headlined “Chechen teen diary a bitter tale of bombs and survival” has been withdrawn because, though it included original reporting, it is too similar to a piece already published by The Guardian on the same subject to be appropriate for publication. No substitute story will be issued.

The similarities were first written about by Dylan Byers in Adweek, when he pointed to a tweet from the Guardian writer:

Byers’ piece noted the many similarities in language between the two pieces, and he also pointed out that both writers had interviewed the subject of their respective articles.

So, aside from withdrawing the story, does Reuters plan to explain what action it will take as a result of the copying? And while were talking about Reuters, I keep wondering when will it make it so that its online corrections page points to real corrections, rather than broken links.

Hat tip to Poynter for drawing my attention to this story.

Via Stinky Journalism

Pretty big apology/retraction. Here’s a summary from the ABC of the false allegations and the fallout:

The article, written by journalist Glenn Milne – but later repudiated by the newspaper – claimed Ms Gillard had been unknowingly implicated in a “major union fraud” while she was working as a lawyer in Melbourne before she entered parliament.
Milne reported on allegations that concerned “the embezzlement of union funds – not disputed – and later the subject of a court conviction by a former boyfriend of Gillard, Bruce Wilson”.
At the time Mr Wilson was an official with the Australian Workers Union.
Milne alleged that “as a solicitor acting on instructions, she set up an association later used by her lover to defraud the AWU”.
“But she has strenuously denied ever knowing what the association’s bank accounts were used for,” Milne added.
Milne wrote that he had originally written the story in 2007 but was prevented on legal advice publishing another allegation.
“What the lawyers would not allow to be reported was the fact that Gillard shared a home in Fitzroy bought by Wilson using the embezzled funds. There is no suggestion that Gillard knew about the origin of the money,” Milne wrote.
Ms Gillard has strenuously denied the claims.

The offending piece was pulled offline, though you can read it here. (Yes, that’s the Facebook page of former Australian PM John Howard. He and Gillard are in competing parties.)

The Australian site Crikey has other notable background.

AP also distributed this photographic comparison of the original and the doctored image:

And here’s a related correction from the Waterloo Region Record in Canada. It published the doctored photo:

The Associated Press distributed a picture showing the mayor of Vilnus, Lithuania, riding in an armoured personnel carrier and flattening a car on a downtown street to dramatize an anti-parking campaign. Upon learning the photo had been doctored by the mayors office to remove other people on the tank, the news service withdrew the photo from its system and archives. The Record ran this photo in the news section on August 4.

*Correction August 22, 2011: The original headline on this post was “AP retracts photo of car crushing mayor.” As pointed out in an error report on MediaBugs, the lack of hyphen “makes it sound as though a car is crushing the mayor, not the other way around.” True. I added the hyphen, and I regret the error.

Readers, I apologize. The premise of my debut column for Reuters, on News Corp’s taxes, was wrong, 100 percent dead wrong.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp did not get a $4.8 billion tax refund for the past four years, as I reported. Instead, it paid that much in cash for corporate income taxes for the years 2007 through 2010 while earning pre-tax profits of $10.4 billion.

For the first time in my 45-year-old career I am writing a skinback. That is what journalists call a retraction of the premise of a piece, as in peeling back your skin and feeling the pain. I will do all I can to make sure everyone who has read or heard secondary reports based on my column also learns the facts and would appreciate the help of readers in that cause.

He goes on to list (in great detail) how he went wrong. Here’s how the column ends:

When more than a day after the column was posted, a News Corp publicist called me, I had already discovered the mistake and told her it was being withdrawn and a correct column written. She also helped me tie down some crucial details, like finding that 2007 disclosure.

I often write tart notes at the Romenesko blog for journalists, the Columbia Journalism Review, Nieman Reports and elsewhere about what I consider flawed reporting by others. I lecture to young reporters around the world on the duty of care they need to take with facts and teach how to check and cross check. Until now I have never made a big mistake, but this is a painful reminder that we all put our pants on one leg at a time. The measure of character, I say in my posts and lectures, is whether when an error is found you forthrightly and promptly correct.

So I hope readers will trust that while I made a whopper of a mistake, it has been corrected forthrightly and promptly.

Over the years I’ve had a few exchanges with Johnston about mistakes and the erosion of accuracy in the press. He always struck me as passionate about accuracy and professionalism. I’m sure this is a tremendously humbling experience for him. It’s a reminder that any of us can make mistakes. That all of us will. But his response is also a reminder that it matters what you do after you discover your error. To get a sense of why that’s the case, read this comment posted on his explanatory/corrective column:

As a layperson, 99% of what you just wrote is complete gobbledygook (wow, that word is somehow acceptable to the Reuters spell check!).

However, I did understand the 1% part of a very clear and conscientious mea culpa.

I’m more inclined to trust the writer’s journalistic integrity after this article, should he ever deign to write about something I would have a snowball’s chance of understanding. I know it must have hurt, but your apology and correction sets a great example and has more impact perhaps than if you’d never made the mistake in the first place. Failures are like that. Depending how you deal with them, they can actually be the foundation for new success.

I hope your editors appreciate that as much as I do. Best of luck and keep up the good work.

I couldn’t have said it better.

What’s encouraging is that NPR issued a correction and editor’s note after Johnston appeared on a program to talk about the mistaken column prior to him realizing his mistake. Here’s the NPR correction:

Editor’s Note: Reuters issued an advisory indicating that the column written by David Cay Johnston, on which this interview with Johnston was based, was wrong:
“Please be advised that the David Cay Johnston column published on Tuesday stating that Rupert Murdoch’s U.S.-based News Corp made money on income taxes is wrong and has been withdrawn. News Corp’s filings show the company changed reporting conventions in its 2007 annual report when it reversed the way it showed positive and negative numbers. A new column correcting and explaining the error in more detail will be issued shortly.”

A transcript of the original interview is now available by clicking on the transcript link at the right of the “listen” box above. Johnston is expected to appear on Morning Edition Thursday to offer further clarification. We will provide updates as they become available.

What’s not encouraging is that the URL for the original Johnston column goes to an error page. Reuters should redirect that URL to the corrective column.

Thanks, @BriscoPhoto!

Psychology Today has apparently yanked a blog post by London School of Economics evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa that wondered why black women were considered less attractive than other women.

The post, titled “Why Are Black Women Rated Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women, But Black Men Are Rated Better Looking Than Other Men?” was posted yesterday and available here, but that page now returns a 503 error …

– via “Psychology Today apparently retracts Kanazawa piece on why black women are ‘rated less physically attractive’,” a post from Retraction Watch.

It’s rare to see a retraction specifically state that it will be repeated online, in print and via social media.

On March 9 we published a graphic titled "Wind turbines: friend or foe?"

The graphic wrongly attributed claims to the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA) that wind turbines are harmful to human health. CANWEA's position is that the balance of expert scientific and medical information to date clearly indicates there is no direct link between wind turbines and effects on human health. This is backed by Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health as well as the National Public Health Institute in Quebec.

We unreservedly retract any attribution to CANWEA to the contrary and apologize for any harm and inconvenience this may have caused. Link