This is not an analysis of Warren’s plan. The @nytimes should retract this in full. 
My analysis of New York Times subscription revenue finds that, if the Times spends the money hiring assassins to shoot nuns, subscribing to the New York Times will result in the murder of hundreds of nuns.
This is extremely simple: The New York Times presents as an analysis of Warren’s plan something that is not, in fact, an analysis of Warren’s plan. There is no ambiguity here. If the @nytimes has any integrity or commitment to honesty, it will retract.
LEFT: The New York Times describing as Elizabeth Warren’s plan something that is not in fact Elizabeth Warren’s plan.
RIGHT: Elizabeth Warren’s actual plan, readily available in the “Plans” section of her website.
RIGHT: Elizabeth Warren’s actual plan, readily available in the “Plans” section of her website.
Prediction: The @NYTimes will not retract this clear falsehood, because correcting mistakes is beneath it. But the Times will also not mount an affirmative defense of this clear falsehood, because responding to criticism from the left is beneath it. And because no defense exists.
Given that this analysis assumes a use for the revenue that is explicitly *not* what Warren says it would be used for, do you think it was accurate for the NYT to characterize it as an analysis of Warren’s plan?
The author of the analysis agrees it should not be described as an analysis of Warren’s plan. The @nytimes has no excuse for not retracting this mess.
.@nytimes retract this. Now.
Prediction: The NYT won’t correct this falsehood, and Elizabeth Warren will be asked a question based on it at next week’s debate.
Critics of your story say your story described as Elizabeth Warren’s plan something that is not, in fact, Elizabeth Warren’s plan. And we say that because it’s true.
