NYT finally retracts its lie

[Cocoa]

Note that the initial response of the reporter, Richard W. Stevenson, was to stand by this story, offering the most LAME statistics to support this claim. Stevenson is imo a bona fide Bush apologist. I've seen him on TV defending Cheney over Halliburton. :puke:

At 05:52 PM 7/22/2004, you wrote:

Dear Mr. Bovino,

Thank you for your response, but Mr. Stevenson's justification for his assertion is not satisfactory.

Relying on a single number, KIA, and an arbitrary period of comparison, is not enough to support the broad claim he made.

Other analyses, from the Boston Globe, and by the Brookings Institute, using a number of measures, show that casualties have increased since the handover.

Donald Rumsfeld made this claim in an NPR interview, that things were "calming down" in Iraq, and NPR later ran a piece which challenged that claim. I think the New York Times should do the same.

Thank you,
C.


Dear Mr. M.,

You may be interested in the following correction which appeared in today's New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/corrections.html



Corrections
Published: August 13, 2004

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." (Go to Article)

Thank you for raising this issue with us.

Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

[indie_voter]

1. Bravo!!

Thank you so much for the work you did in getting the NYT to retract, no easy feat.

Well done.

[fofer]

2. Good for you!

Excellent work.

[Xipe Totec]

3. Good Job! N/T