L.A. Times Issues Correction to Yesterday’s Correction on Eason Jordan
The L.A. Times corrects its correction from yesterday:
CNN resignation — An article in Saturday’s Section A about the resignation of CNN executive Eason Jordan said that in an April 2003 opinion piece in the New York Times, Jordan wrote that he did not allow his network to report all it had learned “during the intense early days of combat in Iraq, for fear that releasing certain confidential information would put lives in jeopardy.” Jordan’s essay was about his network’s coverage in the years and months preceding the war. A correction Tuesday erroneously said his essay referred also to his network’s coverage during the early days of the war.
I alluded to this possibility yesterday, based on a tip from alert reader Thomas B. In an update to this post, I noted: “If you look at Jordan’s op-ed itself, there is only one incident described there that even arguably could have occurred after the war began. The vast majority of the incidents he described occurred well before the beginning of the current war.”
It’s increasingly clear that The Times should have simply used the language suggested to them on Monday by Power Line reader Diana Magrann:
In April 2003, Jordan admitted in a New York Times opinion piece that CNN had withheld knowledge of numerous instances of Saddam’s brutality in order to maintain access.
Ms. Magrann specifically sent this proposed language to the L.A. Times’s “Readers’ Representative” before yesterday’s correction ran. If L.A. Times editors had just used Ms. Magrann’s language, their correction yesterday would have been accurate — and they would not be in the position of correcting their correction from yesterday. Instead, the editors had to try to show that they knew better, and this is the embarrassing result.
UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit and Michelle Malkin for the links. Readers wishing to read or bookmark my main page can go here.
L.A. TIMES CORRECTS YESTERDAY’S CORRECTION ON EASON JORDAN
Embarrassing, but good for them. Previously: The Los Angeles Times’ weak correction…
Trackback by Michelle Malkin — 2/16/2005 @ 6:44 am
Is it my imagination or does Dog Trainer’s corrections taking up epic porportion ala al Guardian? I remember an instance where The Guardian have 4 consecutive corrections, each correcting the previous correction.
Comment by BigFire — 2/16/2005 @ 7:57 am
I see that even the new correction carefully avoided the truth. The original language sugested was correct.
Comment by Sabba Hillel — 2/16/2005 @ 10:55 am
Who Will Correct the Correctors?
Instapundit.com -THE L.A. TIMES corrects a correction. Good for them!I don’t really see it that way. The LAT, both in the original article, and the…
Trackback by Daily Pundit — 2/16/2005 @ 12:03 pm
This paper is great entertainment. Watching them use such great effort to insinuate that false things are true, that up is down, that right is wrong, is totally funny. The tangled tortured language they use to present facts in a way that manipulates how you feel, often results in stuff that is just bogus.
Why say CBS used fake documents, when you can say CBS used memos that some internet users say may be difficult to authenticate?
Comment by Ladainian — 2/16/2005 @ 12:47 pm
I recall that Jordan admitted that safety of others was not his only concern but that CNNs continued access to Baghdad also justified withholding the information. Seeing as journalists do not seem all that concerned with the safety of others at various times, I wonder what weight each of these factors was given?
Comment by slickdpdx — 2/16/2005 @ 1:48 pm
THE L.A. TIMES corrects it’s own “correction”
and still doesn’t get to the truth as well as a blog reader. I swear to heaven that your average blog reader could turn a less dishonest paper than…
Trackback by PRESTOPUNDIT — 2/16/2005 @ 2:26 pm
It’s stuff like this I bring up to the LA Times every time they call me in an effort to get me to resubscribe.
Comment by GEAH — 2/16/2005 @ 4:14 pm
I knew my suggested correction would be more palatable to the Times if I wrote CNN’s motive was “to maintain access and protect the lives of its employees.” I chose not to because, in the end, it was all about access. CNN could have remained silent long enough to pull its employees out of Iraq and then told the world the truth. CNN took the dishonorable path to stay and slant the news to curry favor with the regime.
Comment by Diana Magrann — 2/16/2005 @ 4:20 pm
That’s what happens in an industry where there aren’t multiple layers of editors, fact-checkers, and checks and balances. Or if there are, they must all be borderline incompetent.
Comment by Jeff Moore — 2/16/2005 @ 5:50 pm
“Correcting a correction?”
Oh, God, what’s this world coming to.
Comment by Aunt Rant — 2/16/2005 @ 6:08 pm
The Los Angeles Times is so bad I wouldn’t put it under my dogs butt…
Comment by Paul Young — 2/16/2005 @ 10:00 pm
Put corrections in the Comics’ section.
Comment by J. Peden — 2/18/2005 @ 7:56 am
Corrections 2/14-2/20
Every week, Gelf combs through newspaper corrections for the funniest and most enlightening. Sometimes journalism reveals more in its mishaps than in its success. Gelf makes mistakes, too, and when we do, we’ll disclose them here….
Trackback by Gelf Magazine — 2/21/2005 @ 8:56 pm