The release of the bodycam footage from the Dianna Russini traffic stop put the New York Times in an awkward position. It has now attempted, clumsily, to extricate itself from it.
Although the original article regarding the former Times employee’s activities, which uses her tale of FaceTiming an NFL coach to avoid a ticket as its hook, the Times has posted another article regarding the bodycam footage. (The original article does not include an “Editor’s Note” at the top to reflect that the prior version has been revised. Instead, a parenthetical appears nine paragraphs into the story, acknowledging the bodycam footage.)
The new article, written by the same reporters whose names appear on the original article, recounts the contents of the bodycam footage. It also explains that Danielle Rhoades Ha, a spokeswoman for the Times Company, referred New York Times reporters to the prior statement in which Russini’s publicly-shared version of the incident (albeit demonstrably untrue) was “unacceptable conduct.”
The new article from the Times contains this claim: “It was not certain whether the January traffic stop was the same incident that Ms. Russini described in detail on the podcast.”
Russini has publicly said that the traffic stop occurred after the Bills had fired coach Sean McDermott. The bodycam footage, taken on January 19 — the morning McDermott was fired — confirms that fact. Russini’s version of the events tracks with the contents of the bodycam footage, with one clear exception: There was no FaceTime call.
The Times is now opening the door to the possibility that Russini was stopped twice that morning. And that, in both stops, the officer said he wasn’t a fan of the Giants or the Jets. And that, in one stop, Russini simply showed the officer her texts to the coach of his favorite teams. And that, in the other stop, she FaceTimed the coach of the officer’s favorite team.
It’s OK to admit a mistake. In this case, the Times assumed that Russini’s story was true, without doing the legwork. And, inexplicably, the Times still hasn’t corrected its prior story — despite the indisputable standards in its Ethical Journalism rulebook: “It is our policy to correct our errors, large and small, as soon as we become aware of them.”
The Times has avoided that obligation by taking the position that it’s not “certain” that there was an error.
And that’s certainly laughable.
With all due respect.
