DC: The New York Times quietly issued a major correction to an editorial attacking the electoral college in December, admitting it has in fact defended the electoral college at a time when it was politically expedient for Democrats.
The paper ran the editorial calling for an end to the electoral college in December, when Democrats were harping on the fact that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton beat President Donald Trump in the popular vote, and calling for reforms to make the system more “fair.” Obviously seeking to avoid the editorial position as politically motivated, the editorial emphasized what turned out to be a false claim that the paper has opposed the electoral college system for 80 years.
The piece links back to two other editorials criticizing the electoral college as evidence the board has opposed the system ever since Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt beat Republican Alf Landon in the 1936 presidential election. That position has remained constant regardless of the political outcome, the board wrote, noting an editorial on the system in 2012 that states it “needs to be abolished.”
But the next day, the NYTimes ran a correction that went almost entirely unnoticed, stating the paper had in fact supported the electoral college when President George W. Bush won the 2000 presidential election. “It failed to note an exception: in 2000, the board defended the college after the election of George W. Bush,” the correction reads, totally undermining the idea that its new opposition to the electoral college is not motivated by a distaste for Trump.
IOW, business as usual at the NYSlimes.
Wow. Second time in a week the Times told the truth. Amazing what nose diving circulation and drastic profit losses can do to motivate a failing business. Looks like they’re so desperate they’ll try anything, including honesty. Too late.
More like they whispered the truth.
ABC also had to make a correction and apologize for putting Spicer in a negative light.
I wonder if Trump has someone in the background twisting balls..
OK, BUSTED! Today is OPPOSITE DAY!!! Haha You almost had me.
I’d like to know where they ran the correction in the paper? Was it on the editorial page (where presumably the original piece ran) and was it above the fold with a larger typeface so that it would be noticed? Anyone know?
I am sure the retraction was way, way, way below the fold!
Correction is in the ads, under gay dating.
Desperately trying to “stay” the cage liner of choice.
The New York Two-Times has two massive databases of editorial positions on every topic possible. One is called “In Power” the other is called “Out of Power”. Must have been a glitch in the switch last week.
Judge Roy Bean – isn’t the paper down to one floor of “The Times Bldg.” now; the rest leased out?
Guess they’re branching out into R/E leasing.
LOL!