Monday, March 26, 2007
After Jayson B. & Judith M...
...thank goodness, the New York Times' fact-checking policies have become more stringent.
Oh, wait. Um, never mind:
|
Oh, wait. Um, never mind:
Big trouble at the New York Times Magazine this morning, as an editors' note reveals that one of the women who appeared in last week's cover story on female Iraq veterans never served in Iraq and might have made up much of what she told reporter Sara Corbett in her interview.Based on the information that came to light after the article was printed, it is now clear that The New York Times is not an A-plus quality newspaper -- but it may have become convinced that it once was.
In the original article, 27-year-old Amorita Randall (pictured) claimed to have been stationed in Iraq during 2004. She also said that she suffered a brain injury during a roadside attack, in which her Humvee was hit by an I.E.D. Today, the Times writes that, "Based on the information that came to light after the article was printed, it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq, but may have become convinced she did."
Labels: fact-checking, journalism, New York Times
