Decision ‘08: The Most Painful Correction of All Time
Decision ’08 notes The Most Painful Correction of All Time: the correction the New York Times has finally run on Paul Krugman’s numerous errors regarding the 2000 election. Editor Gail Collins says:
A classic case of correction run amok involved a column that Paul Krugman wrote on Aug. 19 about the Florida recount in 2000 in which he said that two different news media groups reviewed the ballots and found that “a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.” That was incorrect. Paul tried to clarify things in his next column, but the public editor, Byron Calame, objected that since nothing in the second column was labeled a correction, the original error would survive in the permanent record.
Paul published a correction in his next column. Unfortunately, the correction was based on information published in The Miami Herald that was wrong and had never been formally fixed. Paul appended another correction to the Web version of his column, but asked if he could refrain from revisiting the subject yet again in print.
I agreed, feeling we had reached the point of cruelty to readers. But I was wrong. The correction should have run in the same newspaper where the original error and all its little offspring had appeared. Here it is:
CORRECTION
In describing the results of the ballot study by the group led by The Miami Herald in his column of Aug. 26, Paul Krugman relied on the Herald report, which listed only three hypothetical statewide recounts, two of which went to Al Gore. There was, however, a fourth recount, which would have gone to George W. Bush. In this case, the two stricter-standard recounts went to Mr. Bush. A later study, by a group that included The New York Times, used two methods to count ballots: relying on the judgment of a majority of those examining each ballot, or requiring unanimity. Mr. Gore lost one hypothetical recount on the unanimity basis.
Got that? Getting the facts right is “cruelty to readers.”
But as Tim Worstall notes, the corrections haven’t made it onto Krugman’s columns. [UPDATE: Tim is looking at the Lexis-Nexis versions, while I am looking at the Web versions.] Here are the links, and while it’s amusing that each has a bold notice stating: “Correction Appended,” the corrections (as of this posting) are not today’s correction, but rather earlier and largely incorrect corrections:
- August 26 column
[NOTE: See UPDATE below. It’s there now, in the August 26 column only.]
It’s not right yet, Ms. Collins!
UPDATE 10-2-05 4:54 p.m.: I noticed this morning, while clicking links on the Treo, that the 8/26 column did indeed appear to have the new correction as of 9:45 Pacific time. It clearly has it now. I thought I had checked all three this morning before posting, so I believe that the correction was added in between when I posted and when I checked it again — but I didn’t take a screenshot, and I am not 100 percent certain. It is possible that I simply made a mistake and overlooked it in my haste to get out the door. If I did make a mistake, I want to acknowledge it forthrightly — after all, I’m not Paul Krugman!
This is still pathetic. The two earlier columns that actually dealt with the 2000 election, from August 19 and August 22, both still contain the following language, uncorrected:
Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three.
This language is utterly false, as the new correction makes clear — yet these columns are still running with this false and uncorrected language. Unbelievable! After all this! What’s more, I’ll remind you of the ironic title of the August 22 column, which still contains false and uncorrected facts: “Don’t Prettify Our History.”
Ready to pay that $49.95 a year yet?
The Most Painful Correction of All Time
Paul Krugman can rest easy – he will not be forced by Gail Collins into personally admitting the error behind his continued stubborn insistence that he got the story right on the 2000 Florida recounts despite widespread evidence to the contrary. Inst…
Decision '08 (1b383c) — 10/2/2005 @ 9:17 amPaul Krugman may not be above criticism, at least in the blogs, but he’s above being called out on factual error on his home turf. Krugman’s ego is more important to the NY Times than is the paper’s commitment to truthful reporting. That’s another dirty little secret the Times will never acknowledge.
If Krugman says something is so, no matter if it is or not, then the paper’s owner and senior management will pretend to believe it themselves and rally to Krugman’s defense. Sort of like a highly localized version of “My columnist – Right or Wrong.”
Of course, there’s a price to pay in lost credibility, declining subscriptions, and declining Ad revenues, but then, like the folk song goes, “the old gray mare she ain’t what she used to be.”
Sadly, the Newspaper of Record has become the captive of angry, small, and bitter minds pushing a corrupt political agenda at the expense of a once proud tradition of some of the best American journalism had to offer. The king is dead, long live the blog.
[I should note that I do see the new correction now in the last of the three columns — but not in the two that discussed the 2000 election! Did I somehow miss the correction on the 8/26 column? I’m not sure. I’ll update the post to reflect this when I get home — unfortunately, it’s too long to update from the Treo. — Patterico @9:50 a.m.]
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/2/2005 @ 9:34 amThe New York Times is going to be charging people to read Mr. Krugman’s columns; the people who are willing to pay $49.99 a year (other than our inestimable host, who will gladly pay up just so he can check on ’em) to read Mr. Krugman (and Miss Dowd and a couple other of the Usual Suspects) are already persuaded that Al Gore really won the 2000 election, and they don’t care what the evidence is.
I’m beginning to wonder if John Edwards’ “Two Americas” referred to those who get their news exclusively from liberally biased sources and those who get their news from truthful sources.
Dana R. Pico (a071ac) — 10/2/2005 @ 9:57 amAlthouse blogged on this today, too, and I commented over there — this is still not much of a correction IMO. The only recounts Gore won were the ones that used illegal standards. This correction notes that Bush won the “stricter” recounts, but fails to make clear that “stricter” is really a euphamism for “legal”. But so what if standards weren’t legal — Gore would’ve won! Yeesh.
Joan (b7e529) — 10/2/2005 @ 10:49 amSorry, screwed up the link — here’s the post at Althouse.
Joan (b7e529) — 10/2/2005 @ 10:51 am“But as Tim Worstall notes, the corrections havent made it onto Krugmans columns. Here are the links, and while its amusing that each has a bold notice stating: Correction Appended, the corrections (as of this posting) are not todays correction, but rather earlier and largely incorrect corrections:”
The Aug.26th column has the “current” correction appended, doesn’t it?
[Yes. See my note appended to an earlier comment. I don’t know if I overlooked it before or if it has been added since. I would have updated the post, but I’m watching a Winnie the Pooh show with my kids at the Kodak Theater, and can’t update the post from my Treo because of its length. If it’s a mistake on my part (and it could be), I’m not going to leave it uncorrected forever. After all, I’m not Paul Krugman. — Patterico]
Mikey (6a2878) — 10/2/2005 @ 11:02 amIt’s entirely possible that the “correct” corrections have made it there. I’m writing from Europe don’t forget, we get up a few hours earlier.
Tim Worstall (80f419) — 10/2/2005 @ 11:12 amI’d also poinjt out that I’m not using the Times archives but Lexis Nexis…the corrections need to make it there too.
Let me ask you this; after all the hubbub, after Krugman’s repeated (ahem) errors on the subject, after his misleading “correction”, and even now after this correction, does anyone here think the casually interested reader of that column understands the basic truth?
I mean the truth that the newspaper reviews of the Florida debacle, including the review the NYTimes participated in, showed that Bush won.
Have they communicated that fact? Because I for one do not think they have done so.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 10/3/2005 @ 5:12 amKrugman today writes on the topic of formal corrections, being misled, and being proved wrong.
…
More broadly, the big problem with political reporting based on character portraits is that there are no rules, no way for a reporter to be proved wrong. If a reporter tells you about the steely resolve of a politician who turns out to be ineffectual and unwilling to make hard choices, you’ve been misled, but not in a way that requires a formal correction.
And that makes it all too easy for coverage to be shaped by what reporters feel they can safely say, rather than what they actually think or know.
Shredstar (532850) — 10/15/2005 @ 10:07 am…