I know things were a hectic, but I find it rather shocking the ease with which the NYT invented a story about a credentialed reporter out of whole cloth and then published it.
Given how rapidly the FBI is arresting people, the NYT should take pains to get this stuff right.
Given how rapidly the FBI is arresting people, the NYT should take pains to get this stuff right.
https://twitter.com/elivalley/status/1348481465496035329
For those who don't know, Sunday's @nytimes published an image of @RichieMcGinniss, referred to him as a "rioter" and said he was engaged in violent activity at the capitol.
NONE OF THIS IS TRUE.
NONE OF THIS IS TRUE.
While we’re at it, the NYT correction makes no attempt to correct the implication. Instead, they say the “right wing” reporter was somehow adjacent to the violence and property destruction.
This is sickening behavior from the paper of record. Be up front when you fuck up.
This is sickening behavior from the paper of record. Be up front when you fuck up.
Look at this caption. He was literally pointing at his phone that he dropped in the melee, it had all his work on it from the day. 
For sure the photographer heard him asking about this. He was in the maelstrom no different than several other reporters.
NYT libeled him, then in their correction, left the implication that POSSIBLY MAYBE because he works for a RW outlet he may have had some role.
DISGUSTING
NYT libeled him, then in their correction, left the implication that POSSIBLY MAYBE because he works for a RW outlet he may have had some role.
DISGUSTING
What a fucking weasely way to correct a falsehood.
How about owning up to the mistake?
It’s really dumbfounding. Invent a negative story about a person, publish it, then “correct” it by leaving in the implication.
How about owning up to the mistake?
It’s really dumbfounding. Invent a negative story about a person, publish it, then “correct” it by leaving in the implication.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
