It’s one thing to misspell a name or get a specific date wrong. It’s another thing entirely to report that a supposed witness to a sexual assault says he remembers it happening when he has said the exact opposite.
The Times’ mistake remained on its website for more than 40 minutes before anyone caught it. The paper has since amended the story to correct its obviously huge error. The report bears an editor’s note now that reads, “An earlier version of this article misstated what Mark Judge told the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said that he does not remember the episode, not that he does.”
“Does” versus” “does not” makes all the difference.Original Source