Sunday, October 08, 2006

Times correction: sorry for rearranging Brooklyn

The New York Observer recently noted an unusual Times correction. In repeated articles about the Atlantic Yards project -- which I believe is a bad idea, and have campaigned against -- the Times called the project's site "near downtown Brooklyn".

That isn't untrue, but it's misleading. It's also "near central Brooklyn", "partially in Park Slope", and "in an low-density brownstone neighborhood", but all of these give a very different picture of the impact the 19-building, mostly-skyscraper project would make. I live two blocks from where the skyscrapers would begin, and if this is Downtown Brooklyn, why is it a mile to the nearest Citibank?

The Times finally conceded, after being hounded by excellent blogger Norman Oder, that the project is better called "in Prospect Heights and on a block in Park Slope":
Because of an editing error, an article in The Arts on Tuesday about Frank Gehry's design for the first phase of the Grand Avenue development project in Los Angeles misstated the location of the proposed Atlantic Yards project that Mr. Gehry is designing in Brooklyn. (The error also appeared in sports articles on Feb. 9 and April 11, in the City section on Jan. 15 and in several articles in 2003, 2004 and 2005.) It is on rail yards and other land in Prospect Heights and on a block in Park Slope; it is not in Downtown Brooklyn, although it is near that neighborhood.
This kind of correction is not easy for the Times to make, especially when it involves admitting a mistake in too many articles for the Times to list.

In the same Observer bit is mention of an unrelated, classic Times correction:
In yesterday's issue, The New York Times did not report on riots in Milan and the subsequent murder of the lay religious reformer Erlembald. These events took place in 1075, the year given in the dateline under the nameplate on Page 1. The Times regrets both incidents. (March 11, 1975)