New York Times Corrects Error over Iraq casualties...

[Halliburton]

http://www.nytimes.com/corrections.html
<snip>
"An article on July 21 about President Bush's campaign plans for the rest of the summer referred imprecisely to the trend in American military casualties in Iraq after the transfer of sovereignty there on June 28. From the transfer date to the date on which the article was written, casualties increased compared with the same length of time before the transfer; they did not show "some reduction."
<snip>

I guess our e-mails made a difference.

[napi21]

1. Hmmm. Yet another correction by the Times, huh. n/t

[swag]

2. "All the spews that's shit to print"

[Halliburton]

3. They had bad info...

They sent me an email a few weeks ago justifying their casualty numbers because of information they obtained from the Defense Department. Talk about a bad source, they classify casualties based on "non-combat" related incidents. Now they sent me another email today stating that the error has been corrected. I guess they finally figured out that Donald Rumsfeld isn't the most reliable source of information. I don't know why news agencies get information from that idiot. By now, they should realize that he is not a credible source of information.

[aden_nak]

4. Start putting corrections on Page 1, in bold print, and I'll be impressed.

[zbdent]

5. Question - has the Washington Times

ever printed a retraction for actually printing something that is true?

At least the New York Times prints it when they have a correction.

[Bandit]

6. Was this on page A-35?

Funny no other Media source is talking about this. You would think they would love to get their jabs in against the Times.

[Melodybe]

7. I called about this, I talked to the author in question

Nice to see they printed a retraction, too bad it was not on A1. Time to call again

NYT:
[phone]