What is so embarrassing about this headline is that if you read the actual, detailed reporting, you learn conclusively that Rouzan WAS innocent and she WAS NOT a threat.
Why, one wonders, is it so complicated for the @nytimes to accurately describe its own reporting?
Why, one wonders, is it so complicated for the @nytimes to accurately describe its own reporting?
@nytimes For example, in perhaps the most important paragraph in the story
@nytimes In the associated story, the NYTimes is literally "certain" that she was "innocent"
@nytimes It is sad because the reporting is otherwise very deep and so important but unfortunately marred by this framing.
