Hides retraction using rhetorical devices to just plain bad writing.

The name is Clark Hoyt, public editor, NYTimes. He needs to resign. Is this guy performing the usual NYTimes method of operation? Put a lie out there, hide it behind other people, let it bake for enough time to do damage, then hazily retract it offering that it as a non-retraction retraction, say, it doesn't matter either way or some such garbage writing that should also be retracted if not just for its haziness, but won't be, in a good time frame at least.

Isn't that how the lies about Al Gore lying were skillfully given to the public?

In the middle of the article he finally admits it, to the lie of a "gaudy guise" that did not happen as written but only while quickly jumping from general statements to details that can rhetorically confuse readers. For instance using "He" when it could mean one of two or even more people leaving the reader a sense of being unsure of what was attributed to whom especially with sentence after sentence changing the person of subject all in the same paragraph. That helps to hide the clarity people could then have as they talk at the water cooler.

People should be warned before reading such articles. No one except district attorney's office have seen the unedited videos (as long as the lying stopped at them as that would be a crime) and they found nothing wrong. So, notice the clever way the "Revisited" article says it: "entire available public record" or, in other words, the whatever the sleazy film editor says is a full transcript. Whatever full might mean to him, such as one cut that just doesn't reverse some scenes maybe? To conservatives (sic)(that should be with a large C), ACORN is VIRTUALLY a criminal organization that was guilty of... ." Then after leaving an impression of ACORN being guilty of fraud, ... you get what its SUPPORTERS think. Clever.

Makes me wonder that our newspapers, radio and TVs aren't just outlets for ex-CIA agents trying to justify their prior actions taken without realizing which guys they worked for were the bad guys before Senator Church stepped in. They never figured and still don't figure that those guys that they bonded with, that were taking risks along side of them did so to get a better spot near the top of daddy's will and would risk nearly anything to get up there and of course enhance the amount of the future inheritance at the same time.

We've become a nation of people trying to craft ways of getting money out of other people any way we can. Right down to the guy who decides which photo to run of an editor for his "revisited" article.