So how many of you assumed we would never, ever see a New York Times correction on the Planned Parenthood video-story error that GetReligionista emeritus M.Z. Hemingway has been protesting for several weeks?
GetReligion has been seconding her motion over and over, too. We are talking about the original David Daleiden video of the encounter with a Planned Parenthood leader named Dr. Deborah Nucatola.
Now, the Times has a reputation for having one of the best correction desks in all of journalism (GetReligion folks used to get actual calls from real, live human beings there all the time), so this correction is, on one level, not surprising. The error was clear, after all.
As M.Z. wrote, using the Times online correction form:
Phrase in Question: "Mr. Daleiden released what he called the full recording last week after Planned Parenthood complained of selective, misleading editing."
Your Concern (please limit to 300 words): –- This is completely in error. The full recording was released 21 seconds after the edited version, according to YouTube records, many hours before Planned Parenthood tried the public relations spin accepted by some reporters. ...
So now, late, late, late -- after most readers have surely moved on -- we can see that the following text has been added at the end of the online story.
Correction: August 6, 2015
An article on July 21 about a video made by abortion opponents, which they said proved that Planned Parenthood sells tissue from aborted fetuses for profit, referred incorrectly to the timing of the release of what was described as the full-length, unedited version of the video showing a Planned Parenthood employee talking about how much clinics charge for specimens. The full video was posted at the same time as the edited version. It is not the case that the full video was not released until “after Planned Parenthood complained of selective, misleading editing.”
So now, after all of the repetitions of the Planned Parenthood talking point about the planned to release these videos, allowing Planned Parenthood critics to “deceptively edit” the contents -- as the lede on this story still states -- we have this final paragraph:
In the video, Dr. Nucatola says that clinics charge $30 to $100 for a specimen. Mr. Evans, in his letter, noted that she also said 10 times during a two-and-a-half-hour lunch that the charges were for expenses, not profit. But, he added, those statements were not included in the initial nine-minute video. He said they were in the full-length video, which was released at the same time.
So the corrected information is, literally, the last thing in the story, online, weeks later.
Here is my question for dead-tree-pulp New York Times subscribers, since I subscribe to the digital edition: Has this correction been published in actual ink? If so, where did the correction run in the analog newspaper?
Just asking.
Why does this matter so much? When the excellent corrections desk in a newspaper this elite is so, so slow in meeting its own high journalistic standards, this gap in its performance is worth noting. This gap may point to something systemic, in terms of commitment to the coverage of this topic. Kellerism, perhaps?