Every once in a while you see a correction in a newspaper that doesn't quite do justice to the magnitude of the error committed--one where the correction really should say that the article in question never should have been written. This morning's New York Times corrections section offers an example
In order to understand the magnitude of the Times' error, you have to read the original article. As noted, it was published on Sunday, when the Times' circulation is by far the highest. The "fact" that the Times has now corrected was the entire substance of the article.
The Washington Post just can't be that much better than the NY Times... I guess there just aren't as many people fact-checking them.
Now, what was that about journalists being a lot better than bloggers again?