Apparently, the NY Times has published a new rule for columnist corrections. Basically, it says that columnists are required to correct factual errors, which include errors or distortions of quotations along with those of dates, attributions, events or other items not subject to difference of opinion. The actual "policy" as distributed in an internal memo by editorial page editor Gail Collins editor is here (item #22).
And while their opinions are their own, the columnists are obviously required to be factually accurate. If one of them makes an error, he or she is expected to promptly correct it in the column. After some experimentation at different ways of making corrections, we now encourage a uniform approach, with the correction made at the bottom of the piece.A discussion by the paper's "public editor", who recognizes that the new policy is a bit slippery, is here.
But who is to say what is factually accurate? Or whether a quotation is misrepresented? Or whether facts are used or misused in such a fashion as to render a columnist's opinion unfair? Or even whether fairness has anything to do with opinion in the first place? Can you imagine one of the Sunday morning television screamfests instituting a corrections policy?As he suggests, we should wait and see whether this changes anything.
In the consciously cynical words of a retired Times editor, speaking for all the hard-news types who find most commentary to be frippery, "How can you expect fairness from columnists when they make up all that stuff anyway?"