Skip to main content

Will the Times correct the "same site" error? Not quite

This is the second of three articles (first, third) on "Atlantic Yards corrections fatigue."

The New York Times on multiple occasions has suggested that Atlantic Yards would be built on the "same site" Walter O'Malley wanted for a new Brooklyn Dodgers stadium.

That's not true, as I pointed out in an extensive analysis last May. And, while the Times last December made the same error online, apparently because of a reliance on the existing and erroneous clip file, it will not publish a correction for the previous articles.

Why? It's a judgment call, Times editors told me, given that they can't publish corrections for all the "old articles" that deserve them. However, as I argue below, if there is a hierarchy for such corrections, "old articles" that are part of current controversies should be the priority. Indeed, the error gets repeated periodically by project supporters like Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

Moreover, the Times does periodically correct older articles than the ones I cited, including articles that have no relevance to any controversy.

Conclusion: it's another case of "Atlantic Yards corrections fatigue," which I defined as"the disturbing realization that we too often make errors in covering Atlantic Yards."

Pointing out the error

On 12/8/07, I wrote to three Times editors:

The Times on multiple occasions (in articles, an op-ed, and an editorial) has indicated that the arena planned for the Atlantic Yards project would be on the "same site" as the location Walter O'Malley sought for a successor to Ebbets Field.

That's not so; he sought a site across the street, as I explained:

The errors are as follows:
A 1/16/04 article, headlined Yo, Dodgers? No Way! Brooklyn Is Betting on the Nets for Revival, stated:
"Coincidentally, the Nets would be based at the same site that Walter O'Malley wanted as a new home for the Dodgers before moving the team to California."

A 1/22/04 article headlined Nets Are Sold for $300 Million, and Dream Grows in Brooklyn, maintained the error:
"There is no guarantee that Mr. Ratner will be able to fulfill his vision in Brooklyn, where sports fans are still haunted by memories of the Dodgers' departure to Los Angeles after the 1957 season. The arena would be built on the same site the Dodgers were rebuffed from buying."

A 7/1/04 editorial, headlined The Brooklyn Nets, similarly erred:
"There is also, of course, the dream of giving back to Brooklyn some of the luster it lost when Robert Moses killed Walter O'Malley's vision of building a domed stadium for the Dodgers at the same site nearly 50 years ago..."

Former Brooklyn Borough Historian (!) John Manbeck, in an 11/13/05 op-ed headlined The Project That Ate Brooklyn, wrote:
"At the core of the Atlantic Yards plan is an arena for the New Jersey Nets on the very site that was denied the Brooklyn Dodgers 50 years ago."

[I left out an 8/8/03 article, headlined YankeeNets Is on the Verge of Splitting Apart, which stated: "The site, which includes a rail yard and public and private land, strikes a historical echo in Brooklyn. In the 1950's, Walter O'Malley, the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, wanted to build a stadium there to replace Ebbets Field."]

Why is a correction important?

Because the Times last week made the same error online, and then published a correction:
"An earlier version of this article misstated the location of Walter F. O’Malley’s proposed Dodgers stadium from the 1950s in relation to the current-day Atlantic Yards site. It would have been adjacent to, not within the modern footprint of, the Atlantic Yards development. The article has been corrected."

The Times's print coverage got it right:
"Just across Atlantic Avenue from where Mr. O’Malley wanted to build his stadium, the developer Bruce Ratner is developing a $4 billion complex, the Atlantic Yards, featuring a basketball arena."

However, until the archive is corrected, future errors are likely to recur.

A note, not a correction

Senior Editor Greg Brock responded promptly:
[Correction 4/5/09: I previously referred to Brock as Corrections Editor]

On Monday, I will ask our researchers to attach a note to each of the 2004 articles that will say that this is site is across the street. This note will guide reporters who go to the archives to look up information on this project. Though I would hope they would use articles much more recent than 2004 as a guide, since there have been so many developments since then.

As you noted, we had this correct in print. The City Room blog ran its own correction. (We do not correct Web articles in the print editions.)

I am not going to run a print correction for the 2004 news articles. If the editorial editors choose to run a print correction on their 2004 editorial. that is their decision. We have nothing to do with those articles or decisions about corrections on those pages.

There is a limit to how many old articles we can correct in print. If we start that, it would take about 2 open pages every day for a year to correct all the old errors. And I doubt that would be enough. But the note will be placed in our internal archives for future reference.

Op-Ed desk

I got a similar response from an unnamed member of the Op-Ed staff:
Thank you for your note, which Mr. Brock has passed on to us. After consultation with Mr. Manbeck, we have decided to follow Mr. Brock's lead and append a correction to the archive on the Op-Ed article from 2005. Thank you for reading The Times.

My response

I responded to Brock:

I appreciate your prompt reply and agree that appending a note to the archive may be part of a responsible response.

However, I do not think it goes far enough, for the following reasons.

1) It does not conform to the Times's policy.

As in a Q&A last year on the Times's Correction Policy May 10, 2006, your predecessor, Bill Borders, stated "The key principles are to be totally honest and totally transparent. To level with the readers 100 percent."

According to the Stylebook cited:
"Because its voice is loud and far-reaching, The Times recognizes an ethical responsibility to correct all its factual errors, large and small (even misspellings of names), promptly and in a prominent reserved space in the paper. A correction serves all readers, not just those who were injured or who complained, so it must be self-explanatory, tersely recalling the context and the background while repairing the error.
A complaint from any source should be relayed to a responsible editor and investigated quickly. If a correction is warranted, it should follow immediately. In the rare case of a delay longer than a month, the correction should include an explanation (saying, for example, how recently the error was discovered, or why the checking took so long). If the justification is lame or lacking, the correction should acknowledge a reporting or editing lapse."

That Stylebook does not, so far as I can tell, provide an exception for articles of a certain vintage. The policy appears to be inconsistent; indeed, in 2005, the Times corrected errors in an obituary published more than 12 years earlier:

2) As far as I can tell, the note appended to the archives affects only in-house access by the Times. (If that interpretation is wrong, please let me know.) If a correction is not published, it will not be appended to the versions of those articles (and op-ed/editorial) that appear in numerous databases. Thus, other researchers and reporters drawing on those pieces may be misled.

3) If there must be triage regarding the number of "old articles" you can correct in print, I would suggest that print corrections should be prioritized for "old articles" about ongoing controversies, such as Atlantic Yards, especially if the errors all favor "one side" of a controversy.

The Times, through its lapses, five times reinforced the misguided notion that the Atlantic Yards arena might be, in its way, a restoration of Walter O'Malley's dream. That merits correction in print.

Consider a set of "old articles" from two or three years ago that misrepresent the stance of a public official, now a candidate for president, toward an ongoing controversy. Surely those articles would merit correction in print?

An incomplete response

On 12/10/07, Brock responded:
We do in fact correct older articles from time to time. But it's a case-by-case call, not a blanket rule.

The best way to get an article corrected is to report the error at the time it occurs.

Old corrections

Brock's formulation seemed arbitrary, so I kept my eye open for old corrections and, soon enough, found them.

On 12/14/07, however, the Times published this very old correction in the main news section:
Because of a transcription error, a brief art review in Weekend on May 8, 1987, about an exhibition of paintings by Charles G. Shaw at the Richard York Gallery on East 65th Street, misstated the location of a small painting from 1942, whose date did not fit with those of the other paintings, which were made in the 1930s. It was displayed in the vitrine near the receptionist’s desk, not the latrine. (The reviewer called the error to editors’ attention this week while doing research.)

Of course that reviewer is on staff. Curiously, that correction has not been appended to the electronic archive.

On 12/16/07, the Times published a correction in the Sunday Styles section:
An article on Feb. 19, 2006, about people who relocate to Washington, D.C., and keep their hometown cellphone area codes for a sense of regional identity, misspelled the given name of a California woman with a 714 area code who works for a San Francisco congressman. She is Puja Patel, not Punja. (Ms. Patel pointed out the error in an e-mail message on Dec. 7.)

On 12/20/07, the Times published a correction in the main news section:
An obituary on June 30, 2000, about Tobin Rote, a championship quarterback for the Detroit Lions in the 1950s, misstated his full name, referred incorrectly to a relative in the list of survivors and omitted the names of two others. He was Tobin Cornelius Rote Sr. — not Jr. Julie Struble Rote was Mr. Rote’s wife, not a daughter. Two survivors — a daughter named Robin Rote Kirk, of Plymouth, Mich., and a previous wife named Betsy Bobo Todd of Bloomfield Township, Mich. — were omitted. (A family member pointed out the errors in an e-mail message on Tuesday.)

On 1/28/08, the Times published this very old correction: A Sports of The Times column on May 21, 1999, about the vocal presence of New York fans at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta for an N.B.A. playoff game between the Hawks and the Knicks, misspelled the surname of a fan from Howard Beach in Queens. He is Constantin Manta, not Marta. Mr. Manta pointed out the error in an e-mail message this week.

Again, curiously, the correction has not been appended to the electronic archive.

Trivial errors

And then, of course, are the many trivial errors that the Times readily corrects. Yesterday the Times offered:
A picture caption on Friday with an article about Representative John Lewis’s possible shift of support from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Barack Obama misstated, in some editions, the day that the photograph of Mrs. Clinton holding boxing gloves was taken. It was Thursday, not Wednesday.

And today the Times published this correction:
A report in the “Big Deal” column last Sunday about the recent sale of a town house on East 75th Street whose ornate living room has been used for scenes in a television series misstated the name of the series. It is “Gossip Girl,” not “Gossip Girls.”

No one reading the Times would have been seriously misled about the identity of the television series. But some powerful New Yorkers still erroneously believe that the Atlantic Yards arena would be built at the site Walter O'Malley wanted for Ebbets Field.



    This is inaccurate.

    The inaccuracy bears on many substantial issues critical to equity and proper public decision making.

    The public, press and government should be calling for the developer’s retraction of this statement. The New York Times has not done so. (Nor has Spitzer.)

    The Times Statements in many of its articles ECHO the misstatements by the developer reinforcing the misimpressions the developer is for very important tactical reasons intending to convey.

    One could say that this ECHO sounds like voice of the developer’s PARTNER.

    In point of fact, the New York Times is a PARTNER with the developer in the construction of its new headquarters (for which below-cost land was acquired via little reported eminent domain abuse).

    Decide: Does the voice of the Times sound like: a.) a partner of the developer, or b.) an independent voice attentive to the most important issues in New York City governance?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

At 550 Vanderbilt, big chunk of apartments pitched to Chinese buyers as "international units"

One key to sales at the 550 Vanderbilt condo is the connection to China, thanks to Shanghai-based developer Greenland Holdings.

It's the parent of Greenland USA, which as part of Greenland Forest City Partners owns 70% of Pacific Park (except 461 Dean and the arena).

And sales in China may help explain how the developer was able to claim early momentum.
"Since 550 Vanderbilt launched pre-sales in June [2015], more than 80 residences have gone into contract, representing over 30% of the building’s 278 total residences," the developer said in a 9/25/15 press release announcing the opening of a sales gallery in Brooklyn. "The strong response from the marketplace indicates the high level of demand for well-designed new luxury homes in Brooklyn..."

Maybe. Or maybe it just meant a decent initial pipeline to Chinese buyers.

As lawyer Jay Neveloff, who represents Forest City, told the Real Deal in 2015, a project involving a Chinese firm "creates a huge market for…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…