The L.A. Times this morning has a lengthy and remarkable correction to Carol Williams’s recent article about a 9th Circuit ruling. Regular readers will recall that I wrote a detailed criticism of Williams’s article, noting that Williams had incorrectly summarized a court decision regarding a lawsuit brought against John Ashcroft concerning his policies in the war on terror. I also wrote an e-mail to Williams and her editor summarizing the errors. The detailed correction shows that my efforts bore fruit:
Ashcroft ruling: An article on Saturday’s Page A1 about a federal appeals court ruling involving former Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft inaccurately described the breadth of the court’s decision and mischaracterized some elements of the case. The 2-1 ruling by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday held that Ashcroft could be sued personally for allegedly violating the constitutional rights of a Muslim man, Abdullah Kidd, who was detained after the Sept. 11 attacks. The opening paragraph of the article incorrectly said that the court held that Ashcroft had “violated the rights of U.S. citizens.” The appeals court did not decide that question. Instead, the judges ruled that Ashcroft could be held personally liable if Kidd’s allegations proved true. They sent the case back to a lower court for a trial to determine whether the allegations were accurate.
The allegations involve Kidd’s arrest under a federal law that allows officials to detain witnesses in criminal cases whose testimony is needed and who might otherwise flee before a trial. Kidd alleges that Ashcroft adopted a policy that authorized officials to deliberately misuse the material-witness law to detain people the government lacked probable cause to arrest. The court ruled that such a policy — if it existed — would violate the Constitution.
The article also compared the alleged material-witness arrests to another Bush administration anti-terrorism policy, the seizure of suspects outside the U.S., and in doing so referred to both types of arrests as “secret.” Kidd’s arrest and detention were not secret. The article quoted one portion of the ruling, which sharply criticized those who “confidently assert” that the government has the power to detain people on material-witness warrants, but it incorrectly attributed the quotation to “the panel,” rather than to the two judges in the majority. Moreover, the article described the judges as having aimed their criticism at the Bush administration’s policies. Although that was the clear implication of the judges’ words, they never directly named the targets of their criticism, and the article should have made clear that the criticism of the administration was implied, not stated.
Finally, the article quoted two constitutional scholars as praising the ruling, but failed to note that both of them had previously been on record as criticizing Bush administration policies in the area of civil liberties. The article should have included a broader range of reaction to the decision.
I have bolded the portions of the correction that address points I had made in my post and e-mail.
This is a rare case where the editors actually went beyond my criticisms and clarified even more than I had requested. Either others complained as well, or the paper initiated its own internal review of the article after reviewing my points. Either way, this correction goes far beyond the usual defensive and surly corrections the paper so often issues. Its very length is attention-getting, and its detail — and willingness to address bias and not just factual error — is eye-opening.
Williams’s article truly was a shoddy piece of work, but this correction merits a kudos to whomever is responsible. Somebody there actually seems to care about telling the truth.
Now if they could just import that attitude into their original articles, they might actually have a paper worth saving.