NYT's Public Editor Explains How 5 Editors Handled Error-Filled Cronkite Story

nytimes.com:

THE TIMES published an especially embarrassing correction on July 22, fixing seven errors in a single article �" an appraisal of Walter Cronkite, the CBS anchorman famed for his meticulous reporting. The newspaper had wrong dates for historic events; gave incorrect information about Cronkite's work, his colleagues and his program's ratings; misstated the name of a news agency, and misspelled the name of a satellite.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[JohnSawyer]

Mistakes like this are so obvious, it makes me wonder whether it's part of an inside plot to take down the Times.

Yeah, that sounds conspiratorial. So sue me.

[missette]

Stanley's work had become so error-prone she was assigned her own copy editor for a while. So her sloppiness was rewarded. Now that she's back on her own, however, the errors have returned. I sense a real prima donna situation here, where Stanley is deemed above the facts. And remember, we don't see how many errors the copy desk HAS corrected - they're checking for grammar, style, usage, redundancies and inconsistencies, as well as just awkward writing. But copy editing is seldom noticed unless it's not done. For all we know, her original copy might read, "Whats the capitol of Nebraska and whose it's governor." Including the lack of a question mark, that short sentence has five grammar and usage errors. We don't realize that it first looked like that when we read: What is the capital of Nebraska and who's its governor? And this is BEFORE having to check facts that should ultimately be the responsibility of the authors if they consider themselves to be true journalists. With Stanley, apparently every fact from the large to the small is guilty until proven innocent, and her work is pure fiction until fact-checked by an overworked copy editor.

[Dietcokefreak]

In my college news reporting class the first grammar mistake and/or inaccurate fact was an automatic F on the article written (your only grade for the week). There is no excuse. NYT should enroll in some classes at Poynter Institute for a refresher.

[JeffPoster]

I should hope the NYT is more obsessed with detail in light of this...and remembering it used to employ that paragon of accuracy and honesty, Jayson Blair. I rest my case.

[pithy]

The should block Wikipedia in the Times pressroom.

[ProfessorDuh]

Incredible incompetence.

[FHTB]

The Times has become so shoddy, it isn't funny. And yet you have fools here singing its praises...
After Judith Miller and her lies, along with other sad episodes, the once sterling Grey Lady has become a shadow of her once glorious self...My father worked for the AP for 40 years, and even back in the 70s when he was still around, he noticed the Grey Lady's slip was starting to show...

I took a course from a NYT copy editor at Columbia..­.the guy was a laughingst­ock...stud­ents were astounded at his poor grasp of grammar, awful knowledge of syntax, and just plain poor judgement on how to trim or stretch out a story...un­fortunatel­y, this loser is symptomatic of the Times' decline...

[ramper]

Just part of the NYT slide. Like it hasn't been a part of their past.

[fusionfan]

Instead of this nonsense and self-aggrandizing tripe about how closely NY Times dots its i's and crosses its t's, read an article that gets to the heart of corporate (and government) influence of our news media, and the terrible consequences this has had in terms of helping get us into at least the last 2 wars.

By Glenn Greenwald here (August 1 issue): http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

on the "truce" between MSNBC and Fox news, and the implications this has in terms of illustrating how media stories are selected and spun in this country.

[jozzie]

NYT: "even a newspaper like The Times, with layers of editing to ensure accuracy, can go off the rails when communication is poor"

No excuses is right. But how horribly ironic that this travesty happened concerning one of the most scrupulous journalists of our day.

Not a good omen.

[calfacon]

The real explanation? Cronkite wasn't part of a $$$$ paying corporation. Why bother about facts if it's not making money? The NYT has fallen so low.

[Krootie]

It's interesting that the media mentioned Cronkite's opinion that we could never win in Vietnam, but overlooked that he said the same thing in an interview about Bu$h's War.

[Jamesdean]

They should fire Thomas Friedman and with the money saved they should hire couple of copy-editors, proof-readers and sub-editors.

[Social Construct]

Perhaps this means that there are 5 editor jobs open at the NY Times? I need to get my resume over there quick!

-Unemployed American

[Anastasia]

All of these errors were minor, if embarrassing as a whole.

What the Times does well, more than makes up for it.

[blueskybigstar]

What they did well was support the Iraq war without questioning it at all. I would seem they were under orders.

[PunDyt]

It's not the magnitude of the errors – certainly no one would ever get sued over them ... It's how they were made that speaks to something larger.

[yappnmutt]

fitting that the most trusted man in the news business would have a fact challenged piece written by the most manipulative rag in the business.