15 ms·

Is retracting enough? So a news story gets out, millions read it, share or watch it. Then NYT retracts it. Maybe adding a footnote or correction (sometimes the

Is retracting enough? So a news story gets out, millions read it, share or watch it. Then NYT retracts it. Maybe adding a footnote or correction (sometimes they don't even do that [1]) is added to the story. Maybe the story is removed from their site. However, the faulty information has already registered into the minds of millions of people. NYT has already intentionally or unintentionally indoctrinated the minds of many readers and with the "retraction" at the same time they can claim the highest standards of journalism. Unless in good fait, NYT tries to bring as much attention into the correction to the readers they have already impacted, the retraction is journalistic virtue signaling and a very small victory for truth. Even if they do as much work in publicizing the retraction so many people have already formed a biased view and it'll be hard to undo that. The only path forward is to fully hold NYT accountable. Fire the editor and journalist in charge of the story would be a start. [1] https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1187036978463891456 https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1187036978463891456

elsjaako 6y ago
They put the retraction in the podcast feed, which I'm guessing most people who listened to the series are still subscribed to.
- xondono 6y ago
  If the podcast stopped posting new episodes, a lot of people will miss a new one.
- dmix 6y ago
  Most podcast apps stop auto-downloading dead feeds.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    They also advertised it in The Daily, one of the most popular podcasts around, which is how I heard about it since I unsubbed from the Caliphate feed (as it was finished). EDIT: Most charts put it at #2 in US [0]. [0] https://chartable.com/charts/itunes/us-all-podcasts-podcasts https://chartable.com/charts/itunes/us-all-podcasts-podcasts EDIT2: They also wrote a full column in the NYT itself.
admiralspoo 6y ago
There also ought to be an economic incentive, for example refunds to paying readers.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  It is interesting to me that (for a podcast at least) there’s presumably more than enough data available somewhere to send a notification of the retraction if NYT was so inclined. Surely iTunes, Spotify, etc. could identify the vast majority of people who downloaded and listened to these episodes. How come my data is only used to target me when it’s beneficial to these major companies and not when it’s beneficial to me?
  - Ar-Curunir 6y ago
    > How come my data is only used to target me when it’s beneficial to these major companies and not when it’s beneficial to me? This is a glib answer, but it’s because there’s no incentive (financial or otherwise) for these companies to do that
disown 6y ago
> Is retracting enough? That's the modern propaganda M.O. Lie and then retract and demand praise for retracting. Go look up Nayirah's testimony where a kuwaiti diplomat's daughter lied about iraqi soldiers killing "incubator babies" and the media, working with government, spread the lies intentionally to start the first iraq war. Go read about the nonexistent WMDs that the media like the NYT lied about to start the 2nd iraq war. > The only path forward is to fully hold NYT accountable. Fire the editor and journalist in charge of the story would be a start. That's not going to anything. The news industry "recycles" journalists/editors like the catholic church recycles pedophile priests. People should simply be taught what Thomas Jefferson knew. "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day" The problem is that people expect truth and facts from the news industry. People should be taught what the news industry is - a propaganda outlet for the elites. And then let the people judge accordingly. The NYTimes will always be a corrupt agenda driven propaganda organization. You can't change that. What you can change are people's understanding of what the NYTimes is.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  I oftentimes wonder why people want to defend the NYT and the only conclusion I can come up with is that they mistakenly believe they're part of the elite.
  - lr4444lr 6y ago
    Simple defense mechanism. They were raised in educated households where its reporting was considered on practically its own epistemological plane of journalism, its writing standards a model around which to improve their own, and it's just really hard to face the fact that an institution you idolized has flaws, because it means you have to admit you were fooled.
    - analog31 6y ago
      The fact that we're even talking about the credibility of the NYT already places it on a higher epistemological plane than the mainstream media (TV news, social media, etc).
seventytwo 6y ago
So you link to Tim Pool?! Holy agenda pushing...
- tomcam 6y ago
  > Holy agenda pushing... Mind explaining that?
  - muglug 6y ago
    Tim Pool is a fringe right-wing media figure who has little interest in seeking out the truth.
  - whitexn--g28h 6y ago
    Tim frequently shared stories with no truth to them, eg. 2020 Election fraud. He also frequently tells his listeners to distrust the “Democrat Media”. His arguments would typically be considered in bad faith on HN. Linking to Timcast from and article about the NYT is definitely pushing an agenda.
dehrmann 6y ago
I wonder if podcasts are a much riskier medium because of this. When have 12 episodes drilling in ideas based on a faulty premise, it's a lot harder to effectively say "oops," and being longer, there are a lot more opportunities for something to go wrong.
claudeganon 6y ago
Wait until you hear about what the Times did with their reporting on the Iraq War...
franklampard 6y ago
> they can claim the highest standards of journalism Just keep these failures in mind any time in the future NYT is quoted. They don’t deserve
- muglug 6y ago
  One reporter's mistakes don't invalidate a whole newsroom. 99.9% of the time the NYT's scoops are subsequently verified by other news organisations in short order.
  - ardit33 6y ago
    They have been doing this over and over a lot about tech reporting. Borderline malicious reporting by omitting key details to paint whatever narrative they want. Why? They see tech as a direct competitor and want as much smearing as they can. So, it is not a isolated incident.
    - muglug 6y ago
      > Why? They see tech as a direct competitor and want as much smearing as they can. That's absolute nonsense. How in the world does the NY Times compete directly with Facebook, Google, Spotify etc? There's a bit of indirect competition (ad revenue, podcast viewership) but nothing direct.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    99.9% of domestic stories that are easier to verify. NYT has plenty of wiggle room abroad, especially when the domestic audience can't understand the language of the region covered.
  - sampo 6y ago
    Here's a recent example that NYT ended up getting pretty wrong: Finland, ‘Prepper Nation of the Nordics,’ Isn’t Worried About Masks https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/05/world/europe/coronavirus-finland-masks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/05/world/europe/coronavirus-... When we (Finland) actually opened the famed stockpiles, we found we had protective gear for about next 3 weeks. The cited chief executive of Finland’s National Emergency Supply Agency, Mr. Lounema ended up promptly resigning, and the whole case was a big scandal in Finnish news for several weeks: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/stockpile_boss_resigns_after_failed_mask_procurements/11302759 https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/stockpile_boss_resigns_af... https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000006469197.html https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000006469197.html https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11302248 https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11302248 https://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotimaa/mielipide-kotimaa/valtion-hankintafiaskojen-taustalla-on-osaamisen-puute-julkisia-hankintoja-koskeva-koulutus-on-viela-alkutekijoissaan/ https://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotimaa/mielipide-kotimaa/v...
cowpig 6y ago
Did you listen to the podcast? Because I can't relate at all to this reaction, given nuanced take of the original series. The story is very much the story of an investigation, and it's made pretty clear that the central character's story is suspect. The second half of the series follows the reporter as she tries to corroborate the story she was told, and weighs the evidence she sees against her own knowledge. In the end the implication is that she believes part of his story is probably true, but never expresses certainty. I didn't come away thinking I'd necessarily heard the personal account of an ISIS member. Rather, I felt that I learned a lot about the process of investigative journalism, and how incredibly difficult it is to confirm information in wartime. The fact that it's even being retracted at all seems like overkill to me, and I think that in a different climate, where the integrity of the NYT wasn't under so much scrutiny, the response would have been more measured.
- danso 6y ago
  But generally, news orgs don't commit to doing huge year-long projects/investigations into something they know to be fake. Or, if they do, the story is about the fakery (and the psychology/personality of the person behind it) – it doesn't attempt to pass it off as "maybe true". The average investigative reporter receives tons of bullshit or otherwise overhyped leads. It benefits no one to elevate each of those into a prestige project.
  - cowpig 6y ago
    But the reporter believed it was most likely that part of the story was true. There was corroboration from sources in US and Canadian intelligence saying they believed he was a member of ISIS, and the photo he had on his phone that was taken in Syria. In retrospect, they are saying the needle moved from "more likely true" to "more likely fabricated." In any case the story he was telling was believable, and painted a realistic picture of what was happening in the region. So it's not nearly so black and white
    - hitekker 6y ago
      > In the interview with NPR lasting nearly an hour, Baquet says the Times did not have evidence Chaudhry had ever been to Syria. Nor could it show he had joined ISIS, much less killed civilians for the group. The man's account proved to be riddled with holes and contradictions. Even when confronting some of them, the reporting and producing team sought ways to show his story could still turn out to be true. At this point, you can either believe NPR, "his story was not fact-checked at all", or the New York Times, "we did our due diligence." One is telling the truth, and the other is lying. You can't believe them both without descending into doublethink.
rrdharan 6y ago
Beyond just abstractly infiltrating minds, this story directly bolstered real policy changes with real consequences for Canadian asylum seekers including children. This whole thing is shameful and embarrassing, or at least it should be. I recommend reading what folks like Laila Al-Alarian and other non-NYT folks have been saying about this cf*k for some time: https://twitter.com/PeterHamby/status/1340022426223034370?s=20 https://twitter.com/PeterHamby/status/1340022426223034370?s=... https://twitter.com/SanaSaeed/status/1339998015399088129?s=20 https://twitter.com/SanaSaeed/status/1339998015399088129?s=2... https://twitter.com/LailaAlarian/status/1340002570404806656?s=20 https://twitter.com/LailaAlarian/status/1340002570404806656?... Also worth looking into Rukmini’s funding sources and how she was vaulted into this position of primacy for an eye into the geopolitical machinations that lead to this sort of thing playing out.
sulam 6y ago
Personally I subscribe to the NYT and I only heard about this story because of the retraction and investigation that they published in the newspaper. So at least from my perspective as a NYT customer, they have done enough to let me know they messed up here. They've also reassigned the journalist to another beat, which isn't loss of a job, but fact-checking is a team effort and I don't think it's fair for a journalist to bear the entire brunt of the fallout.
- exhilaration 6y ago
  Same here, I'm a paying NYT subscriber, never heard the podcast, but I did see the multiple stories of the retraction on the front page. I would argue far MORE people heard of the retraction than ever listened to the original podcast.
catacombs 6y ago
> Is retracting enough? No. They need to fire Rukmini. Just because she is considered a "superstar" in the newsroom doesn't mean she gets off the hook for embarrassing the company with a debunked project.
- 8note 6y ago
  I'm not sure that's the thing they need to do. What i want is a post mortem. What went wrong in their organization that let it through, and what changes are they going to make to ensure it doesn't happen again?
- didibus 6y ago
  That seem ridiculous and unfair. Feels akin to fixing a security breach by firing the dev who introduced the vulnerability. What they need to do is adopt better processes and put mechanism in place for things like that not to happen again, no matter who the journalist would be.
  - catacombs 6y ago
    > Feels akin to fixing a security breach by firing the dev who introduced the vulnerability. How big is the breach? If it's a minor incident, sure, keep the dev. However, if the dev introduced a breach that caused the company millions of dollars in damages and likely an outside investigation, then that dev will likely be fired for incompetence. > That seem ridiculous and unfair. Not at all. That's how the media industry works: Factual errors are a cardinal sin. The New York Times is the one of the most prestigious journalistic institutions in the world, one who touts its "Paper of Record" title with a reputation for thorough and accurate reporting. Rukmini, Andy Mills, and their editors are expected to abide by those standards. With Caliphate, that went out the window. Not to mention the numerous red flags raised by other reporters and editors within The Times' Foreign team that pointed to questionable reporting and sourcing by to Rukmini. Caliphate has collapsed under its weak reporting, forcing The Times to revoke and return several prestigious awards, including a Peabody and a Pulitzer Prize finalist, an embarrassing look for the paper. And, for that, heads should roll, from Rukmini and Mills to the editors overseeing the project. However, this likely won't happen. Rukmini has already been reassigned to another section and will likely continue her work (in reality, The Times won't let go of one its "star" reporters, and Rukmini won't find a more lucrative gig at a news organization with as much prestige and resources than The Times). Mills, however, will likely be fired, and not because of Caliphate: There are reports of Mills' predatory behavior toward young, female journalists, and many of them are coming forward. The outcry will likely reach a fever pitch and likely lead to his resignation next year.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
meowface 6y ago
For what it's worth, I did see the retraction displayed fairly prominently below the fold on nytimes.com yesterday. So they're not trying to bury it, at least.
analog31 6y ago
I subscribe to the NYT, but it's not the only thing I read. The retraction was plastered all over in the press.

elsjaako 6y ago

They put the retraction in the podcast feed, which I'm guessing most people who listened to the series are still subscribed to.

xondono 6y ago
If the podcast stopped posting new episodes, a lot of people will miss a new one.
dmix 6y ago
Most podcast apps stop auto-downloading dead feeds.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  They also advertised it in The Daily, one of the most popular podcasts around, which is how I heard about it since I unsubbed from the Caliphate feed (as it was finished). EDIT: Most charts put it at #2 in US [0]. [0] https://chartable.com/charts/itunes/us-all-podcasts-podcasts https://chartable.com/charts/itunes/us-all-podcasts-podcasts EDIT2: They also wrote a full column in the NYT itself.

admiralspoo 6y ago

There also ought to be an economic incentive, for example refunds to paying readers.

elliekelly 6y ago
It is interesting to me that (for a podcast at least) there’s presumably more than enough data available somewhere to send a notification of the retraction if NYT was so inclined. Surely iTunes, Spotify, etc. could identify the vast majority of people who downloaded and listened to these episodes. How come my data is only used to target me when it’s beneficial to these major companies and not when it’s beneficial to me?
- Ar-Curunir 6y ago
  > How come my data is only used to target me when it’s beneficial to these major companies and not when it’s beneficial to me? This is a glib answer, but it’s because there’s no incentive (financial or otherwise) for these companies to do that

disown 6y ago

> Is retracting enough? That's the modern propaganda M.O. Lie and then retract and demand praise for retracting. Go look up Nayirah's testimony where a kuwaiti diplomat's daughter lied about iraqi soldiers killing "incubator babies" and the media, working with government, spread the lies intentionally to start the first iraq war. Go read about the nonexistent WMDs that the media like the NYT lied about to start the 2nd iraq war. > The only path forward is to fully hold NYT accountable. Fire the editor and journalist in charge of the story would be a start. That's not going to anything. The news industry "recycles" journalists/editors like the catholic church recycles pedophile priests. People should simply be taught what Thomas Jefferson knew. "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day" The problem is that people expect truth and facts from the news industry. People should be taught what the news industry is - a propaganda outlet for the elites. And then let the people judge accordingly. The NYTimes will always be a corrupt agenda driven propaganda organization. You can't change that. What you can change are people's understanding of what the NYTimes is.

cbozeman 6y ago
I oftentimes wonder why people want to defend the NYT and the only conclusion I can come up with is that they mistakenly believe they're part of the elite.
- lr4444lr 6y ago
  Simple defense mechanism. They were raised in educated households where its reporting was considered on practically its own epistemological plane of journalism, its writing standards a model around which to improve their own, and it's just really hard to face the fact that an institution you idolized has flaws, because it means you have to admit you were fooled.
  - analog31 6y ago
    The fact that we're even talking about the credibility of the NYT already places it on a higher epistemological plane than the mainstream media (TV news, social media, etc).

seventytwo 6y ago

So you link to Tim Pool?! Holy agenda pushing...

tomcam 6y ago
> Holy agenda pushing... Mind explaining that?
- muglug 6y ago
  Tim Pool is a fringe right-wing media figure who has little interest in seeking out the truth.
- whitexn--g28h 6y ago
  Tim frequently shared stories with no truth to them, eg. 2020 Election fraud. He also frequently tells his listeners to distrust the “Democrat Media”. His arguments would typically be considered in bad faith on HN. Linking to Timcast from and article about the NYT is definitely pushing an agenda.

dehrmann 6y ago

I wonder if podcasts are a much riskier medium because of this. When have 12 episodes drilling in ideas based on a faulty premise, it's a lot harder to effectively say "oops," and being longer, there are a lot more opportunities for something to go wrong.

claudeganon 6y ago

Wait until you hear about what the Times did with their reporting on the Iraq War...

franklampard 6y ago

> they can claim the highest standards of journalism Just keep these failures in mind any time in the future NYT is quoted. They don’t deserve

muglug 6y ago
One reporter's mistakes don't invalidate a whole newsroom. 99.9% of the time the NYT's scoops are subsequently verified by other news organisations in short order.
- ardit33 6y ago
  They have been doing this over and over a lot about tech reporting. Borderline malicious reporting by omitting key details to paint whatever narrative they want. Why? They see tech as a direct competitor and want as much smearing as they can. So, it is not a isolated incident.
  - muglug 6y ago
    > Why? They see tech as a direct competitor and want as much smearing as they can. That's absolute nonsense. How in the world does the NY Times compete directly with Facebook, Google, Spotify etc? There's a bit of indirect competition (ad revenue, podcast viewership) but nothing direct.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  99.9% of domestic stories that are easier to verify. NYT has plenty of wiggle room abroad, especially when the domestic audience can't understand the language of the region covered.
- sampo 6y ago
  Here's a recent example that NYT ended up getting pretty wrong: Finland, ‘Prepper Nation of the Nordics,’ Isn’t Worried About Masks https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/05/world/europe/coronavirus-finland-masks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/05/world/europe/coronavirus-... When we (Finland) actually opened the famed stockpiles, we found we had protective gear for about next 3 weeks. The cited chief executive of Finland’s National Emergency Supply Agency, Mr. Lounema ended up promptly resigning, and the whole case was a big scandal in Finnish news for several weeks: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/stockpile_boss_resigns_after_failed_mask_procurements/11302759 https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/stockpile_boss_resigns_af... https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000006469197.html https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000006469197.html https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11302248 https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11302248 https://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotimaa/mielipide-kotimaa/valtion-hankintafiaskojen-taustalla-on-osaamisen-puute-julkisia-hankintoja-koskeva-koulutus-on-viela-alkutekijoissaan/ https://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotimaa/mielipide-kotimaa/v...

cowpig 6y ago

Did you listen to the podcast? Because I can't relate at all to this reaction, given nuanced take of the original series. The story is very much the story of an investigation, and it's made pretty clear that the central character's story is suspect. The second half of the series follows the reporter as she tries to corroborate the story she was told, and weighs the evidence she sees against her own knowledge. In the end the implication is that she believes part of his story is probably true, but never expresses certainty. I didn't come away thinking I'd necessarily heard the personal account of an ISIS member. Rather, I felt that I learned a lot about the process of investigative journalism, and how incredibly difficult it is to confirm information in wartime. The fact that it's even being retracted at all seems like overkill to me, and I think that in a different climate, where the integrity of the NYT wasn't under so much scrutiny, the response would have been more measured.

danso 6y ago
But generally, news orgs don't commit to doing huge year-long projects/investigations into something they know to be fake. Or, if they do, the story is about the fakery (and the psychology/personality of the person behind it) – it doesn't attempt to pass it off as "maybe true". The average investigative reporter receives tons of bullshit or otherwise overhyped leads. It benefits no one to elevate each of those into a prestige project.
- cowpig 6y ago
  But the reporter believed it was most likely that part of the story was true. There was corroboration from sources in US and Canadian intelligence saying they believed he was a member of ISIS, and the photo he had on his phone that was taken in Syria. In retrospect, they are saying the needle moved from "more likely true" to "more likely fabricated." In any case the story he was telling was believable, and painted a realistic picture of what was happening in the region. So it's not nearly so black and white
  - hitekker 6y ago
    > In the interview with NPR lasting nearly an hour, Baquet says the Times did not have evidence Chaudhry had ever been to Syria. Nor could it show he had joined ISIS, much less killed civilians for the group. The man's account proved to be riddled with holes and contradictions. Even when confronting some of them, the reporting and producing team sought ways to show his story could still turn out to be true. At this point, you can either believe NPR, "his story was not fact-checked at all", or the New York Times, "we did our due diligence." One is telling the truth, and the other is lying. You can't believe them both without descending into doublethink.

rrdharan 6y ago

Beyond just abstractly infiltrating minds, this story directly bolstered real policy changes with real consequences for Canadian asylum seekers including children. This whole thing is shameful and embarrassing, or at least it should be. I recommend reading what folks like Laila Al-Alarian and other non-NYT folks have been saying about this cf*k for some time: https://twitter.com/PeterHamby/status/1340022426223034370?s=20 https://twitter.com/PeterHamby/status/1340022426223034370?s=... https://twitter.com/SanaSaeed/status/1339998015399088129?s=20 https://twitter.com/SanaSaeed/status/1339998015399088129?s=2... https://twitter.com/LailaAlarian/status/1340002570404806656?s=20 https://twitter.com/LailaAlarian/status/1340002570404806656?... Also worth looking into Rukmini’s funding sources and how she was vaulted into this position of primacy for an eye into the geopolitical machinations that lead to this sort of thing playing out.

sulam 6y ago

Personally I subscribe to the NYT and I only heard about this story because of the retraction and investigation that they published in the newspaper. So at least from my perspective as a NYT customer, they have done enough to let me know they messed up here. They've also reassigned the journalist to another beat, which isn't loss of a job, but fact-checking is a team effort and I don't think it's fair for a journalist to bear the entire brunt of the fallout.

exhilaration 6y ago
Same here, I'm a paying NYT subscriber, never heard the podcast, but I did see the multiple stories of the retraction on the front page. I would argue far MORE people heard of the retraction than ever listened to the original podcast.

catacombs 6y ago

> Is retracting enough? No. They need to fire Rukmini. Just because she is considered a "superstar" in the newsroom doesn't mean she gets off the hook for embarrassing the company with a debunked project.

8note 6y ago
I'm not sure that's the thing they need to do. What i want is a post mortem. What went wrong in their organization that let it through, and what changes are they going to make to ensure it doesn't happen again?
didibus 6y ago
That seem ridiculous and unfair. Feels akin to fixing a security breach by firing the dev who introduced the vulnerability. What they need to do is adopt better processes and put mechanism in place for things like that not to happen again, no matter who the journalist would be.
- catacombs 6y ago
  > Feels akin to fixing a security breach by firing the dev who introduced the vulnerability. How big is the breach? If it's a minor incident, sure, keep the dev. However, if the dev introduced a breach that caused the company millions of dollars in damages and likely an outside investigation, then that dev will likely be fired for incompetence. > That seem ridiculous and unfair. Not at all. That's how the media industry works: Factual errors are a cardinal sin. The New York Times is the one of the most prestigious journalistic institutions in the world, one who touts its "Paper of Record" title with a reputation for thorough and accurate reporting. Rukmini, Andy Mills, and their editors are expected to abide by those standards. With Caliphate, that went out the window. Not to mention the numerous red flags raised by other reporters and editors within The Times' Foreign team that pointed to questionable reporting and sourcing by to Rukmini. Caliphate has collapsed under its weak reporting, forcing The Times to revoke and return several prestigious awards, including a Peabody and a Pulitzer Prize finalist, an embarrassing look for the paper. And, for that, heads should roll, from Rukmini and Mills to the editors overseeing the project. However, this likely won't happen. Rukmini has already been reassigned to another section and will likely continue her work (in reality, The Times won't let go of one its "star" reporters, and Rukmini won't find a more lucrative gig at a news organization with as much prestige and resources than The Times). Mills, however, will likely be fired, and not because of Caliphate: There are reports of Mills' predatory behavior toward young, female journalists, and many of them are coming forward. The outcry will likely reach a fever pitch and likely lead to his resignation next year.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

meowface 6y ago

For what it's worth, I did see the retraction displayed fairly prominently below the fold on nytimes.com yesterday. So they're not trying to bury it, at least.

analog31 6y ago

I subscribe to the NYT, but it's not the only thing I read. The retraction was plastered all over in the press.