Sam Tanenhaus’ NYT “Week In Review” essay tries to make a tenuous allegorical link between Jerry Falwell’s death and Paul Wolfowitz’s resignation from the World Bank on the potential falling decline of the American conservative movement.
It is something of a stretch. However, what immediately undermined the premise for me as I read it in the Sunday paper (dead-tree version) was this sentence:
And after failing to impeach Mr. Clinton, House Republicans, far from retreating into caution or self-doubt, kept up the pressure and turned the 2000 election into a referendum on Mr. Clinton’s character.
Here’s a shot of the piece:
The sentence called the piece into question because of its historical inaccuracy: House Rpeublicans impeached Clinton; the Senate, of course, failed to convict him.Well, lo and behold, this is what we find, when we go to the story on The Times’ website:
And after failing to win a conviction of Mr. Clinton following his impeachment, Republicans, far from retreating into caution or self-doubt, kept up the pressure and turned the 2000 election into a referendum on Mr. Clinton’s character.
There is no editorial note anywhere on the page to take note of the change. So, what, The New York Times didn’t think anyone would notice?
Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here