« VC hints he'd like to stay | Main | Dismissal eyed for federal suit against Atlantic Yards »

February 26, 2007

A grudging Times correction on "city approval" and another taking more blame than Barclays

Atlantic Yards Report

pullingteeth.gifGetting The NY Times to print a correction in reference to Atlantic Yards feels like pulling teeth, especially when they have printed the same correction in the past:

Why did it take six days for the New York Times to grudgingly correct a basic error in a 2/20/07 Metro Brief about Atlantic Yards, especially since the Times in December published essentially the same correction?

The brief stated:
The city and state approved the project despite heated opposition from residents...

The correction today, under the For the Record rubric (where basic errors are corrected), states:
*A report in the Metro Briefing column on Tuesday about the construction work expected to begin at the Atlantic Yards project near downtown Brooklyn referred imprecisely to the development. Although it has been endorsed by the Bloomberg administration and the City Planning Commission, it is a state project that does not require formal city approval. (Emphasis added)

That wasn't imprecise but simply incorrect.

Why did The Times take so long? What's the big deal anyway? What about the Barclays correction?

Perhaps The Times is getting sick of being fact-checked by Norman Oder.

"Correction fatigue," anyone?

Click here to get the rest of the story.

Posted by lumi at February 26, 2007 8:51 AM