UPDATED: MZ's requests for a Planned Parenthood related New York Times correction

The Planned Parenthood fetal-tissue story rolls on in alternative media, with a second undercover video (unedited version here) offering some interesting headline hooks, for those with the stomach to use them.

One key word is "Lamborghini."

The hot phrase for the day is "less crunchy."

Will journalists be willing to interview Planned Parenthood defectors on some of these issues?

A day or so after the first David Daleiden video production surfaced, featuring a Planned Parenthood leader named Dr. Deborah Nucatola, I asked a basic question. If the first reports, mostly in conservative media, were based largely on the press materials circulated by the Center for Medical Progress, I wondered to what degree the mainstream news stories that were eventually published would center on the public-relations DNA of Planned Parenthood.

Now, a website called (C.S. Lewis trigger alert!) TheWardrobeDoor.com has noted an interesting problem at the end of a New York Times report in which Planned Parenthood leaders warn their supporters in Washington, D.C., that more videos are on the way. This passage, featuring Planned Parenthood lawyer Roger K. Evans, is at the very end of the report.

A Biomax representative at least once was admitted by Planned Parenthood employees to “a highly sensitive area in a clinic where tissue is processed after abortion procedures,” Mr. Evans wrote. Another time, a Biomax representative asked about the racial characteristics of tissue provided to researchers; anti-abortion activists have often alleged that Planned Parenthood engages in “genocide” of African-American babies. And Biomax proposed “sham procurement contracts,” offering one clinic $1,600 for a fetal liver and thymus, Mr. Evans said.
In the video, Dr. Nucatola says that clinics charge $30 to $100 for a specimen. Mr. Evans, in his letter, noted that she also said 10 times during a two-and-a-half-hour lunch that the charges were for expenses, not profit. But, he added, those statements were not included in the initial nine-minute video. Mr. Daleiden released what he called the full recording last week after Planned Parenthood complained of selective, misleading editing.

So what is the problem? Where is the error -- a piece of PR language, actually -- that needs to be corrected?

Let's let GetReligion emeritus M.Z. Hemingway of The Federalist explain, in her short note to Times editors requesting a correction:

Article Headline: Planned Parenthood Tells Congress More Videos of Clinics Might Surface

Date Published: Web: July 20, Print: July 21

Web or Print: Both

Phrase in Question: "Mr. Daleiden released what he called the full recording last week after Planned Parenthood complained of selective, misleading editing."

Your Concern (please limit to 300 words): --- This is completely in error. The full recording was released 21 seconds after the edited version, according to YouTube records, many hours before Planned Parenthood tried the public relations spin accepted by some reporters. ...

Please let me know when the correction has been issued.
Your Name: Mollie Hemingway ...

Your Location: Alexandria, VA

I would like to second this request for the attention of the excellent team at the Times correction desk. How can the Times account be squared with the items posted online and featured in numerous online reports?

UPDATED: M.Z. is still filling out the online forms at The New York Times requesting that correction, since -- as several readers have noted -- the error not only lives on, but has spread to another part of the paper.

Thus:

A request for a correction in The New York Times:

Article Headline: The Campaign of Deception Against Planned Parenthood

Date Published: July 22

Web or Print: Both

Phrase in Question: "The full video of the lunch meeting, over two hours long and released by the Center for Medical Progress after complaints by Planned Parenthood, shows something very different from what these critics claim."

Your Concern (please limit to 300 words): --- Leaving aside the opinion portion of this phrase, at least one factual claim here is in error. The full recording was released 21 seconds after the edited version, according to YouTube records, many hours before Planned Parenthood tried the public relations spin accepted by some reporters.

The error spread to the editorial page because you still haven't corrected the original "news" story by Jackie Calmes that I notified you about a full day ago.

More here: http://thewardrobedoor.com/2015/07/new-york-times-spreads-false-info-about-planned-parenthood-videos.html

Please let me know when both corrections have been issued.

Your Name: Mollie Hemingway ...

Your Location: Alexandria, VA

Please respect our Commenting Policy