« Winchester factory site to see residential, commercial spaces | Main | Who's Kidd-ing Whom? »
February 18, 2008
Not an error but a "minor imprecision"
Atlantic Yards Report takes on his third day of New York Times "Atlantic Yards corrections fatigue." Today's edition: Somewhere Over the Railyards. The Times has consistently referred to the Atlantic Yards proposal as being built "on rail yards." Will they correct their error from January 31?
The article, headlined Scaffold Falls, Killing Worker in Brooklyn, concerned an accident at a site in Clinton Hill and offered this context:
It is in a section of Brooklyn that is being swept up in new development, with the huge Atlantic Yards entertainment, residential and commercial complex planned on rail yards a few blocks to the west.
(Emphasis added)Of course, only 8.5 acres of the 22-acre project would be rail yards, so the distinction is important. If all of Atlantic Yards were to built on public land, there would've been no battle over blight and eminent domain.
...
On January 31, I emailed Karin Roberts, Assistant to the Metropolitan Editor, with a link to my blog post pointing out the error. I didn't hear back, so on February 9, I wrote to another Times editor.On February 11, I got this reply from Roberts:
We are not publishing a correction. It was a fleeting reference in an article that had nothing to do with Atlantic Yards, and it was at worst a minor imprecision, not an error. And before you cite chapter and verse of the Times ethics guidelines to me, please be aware that Times editors are trusted to use their best judgment. In mine, no correction is warranted. Thank you for writing.
...
While the Atlantic Yards error was not directly related to the subject of the article, it was a major imprecision. Why major? Because unlike many other errors and not-minor imprecisions the Times corrects regularly, it has public policy implications.
Posted by amy at February 18, 2008 7:28 AM