NYT's public editor: Our story "overstated" evidence of Christie's link to lane closures
Margaret Sullivan, the New York Times' public editor, criticized a story written by Kate Zernike which reported evidence of Chris Christie's knowledge about the closures of lanes in "Bridge-gate".
The Metro editor expressed "regret" over the handling of the story too, saying:
"“But should there have been an editor’s note? Perhaps. I regret not suggesting that.”
Another excerpt:
"In the digital age, news evolves before our very eyes. A story breaks and goes online with perhaps a few rough paragraphs. Soon after, more details are added, new angles explored and writing is tuned up. Finally — at least in organizations like The Times — a thorough and polished version makes its way onto the web and into both print and the archives.
It happens every day, all day.
But what about a case in which an early version of a story says something that proves to be, if not untrue, then at least overstated?"
"Some sort of notice was due to the reader that the initial story had changed in a substantial way.", she said.
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/as-the-latest-christie-story-evolved-the-times-should-have-noted-a-change/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
= new reply since forum marked as read
