How a New York Times error ripples through America

A week and a half ago or so, I read a New York Times story about a new Airbus seating map that would have passengers standing in their planes during flights. Power Line reports on the Times' correction on that story:

On Tuesday, the Times ran a correction that acknowledged a fundamental error:

During preparation of the article, The Times's questions to one aircraft manufacturer, Airbus, were imprecise. The company now says that while it researched that idea in 2003, it has since abandoned it. The article also misstated the capacity of the Airbus A380 superjumbo jet. The airliner can accommodate 853 passengers in regular seats; standing-room positions would not be needed.

The problem with an error like that is that, because it is a New York Times story, it becomes fact and the buried correction never changes that. This afternoon I was listening to The Green House on 620 WTMJ AM out of Milwaukee. The show's news guy, Phil Cianciola, in reference to airlines getting greedy, alluded to the fact that we'll all be standing in airplanes like we do in subways, and I'm sure it was based off of this story. As it turns out, what Cianciola said on the radio to tens of thousands of southeastern Wisconsinites was incorrect, but it really wasn't his fault. It was in the Times, after all. Because of the Times' shoddy reporting, thousands upon thousands of Milwaukeeans now have a false view of where the airlines' business plans are headed, and it will be near impossible to clear this myth from the public consciousness. The New York Times, which likes to think of itself as the "paper of record" (even if it shies from that description) has done such a good job marketing itself as such that it really needs to hold itself to an impeccable standard. Unfortunately for all of us who appreciate fact and truth in discussions of the public realm, the Times does not. If some of you wonder why some of us are always so hard on the Times, this is a prime example. Every error by the Times further fouls public conversations, and it will remain that way until the Times takes up its mantle as the paper of record or until the paper is sufficiently discredited. Which ever occurs, it will be the choice of the Times.