> This fall, as Canadian authorities were wrapping up an investigation on Chaudhry, Callimachi similarly championed her series. On Twitter, she raised questions about the competence of Canadian intelligence officials in the Chaudhry case. The Times defended her piece to The Washington Post and others, saying the reporting proved to be true and that doubts about Chaudhry's account were central to the podcast's narrative.
This isn't "coming clean", it's getting busted. They had a chance at the former several months ago, and they forwent it.
Just curious, my understanding is that Canada's case is only getting started. Yes, they charged him for "hoax", but it could very well be a trap: Chaudhry has to either provide proof that he is an ISIS fighter, or admit it was all a hoax.
Either way, we won't know for sure until the case is over. So far it's just alleged.
If they were ever doing their jobs this never would have seen the light of day. Even the most basic amount of research showed it was unsubstantiated.
Same with 1619 which is “problematic”.
Their desire to push a narrative outweighed their desire to be factually correct.
The scandal here isn’t they removed something quietly. It’s that if they failed their jobs here, where else are they failing and just haven’t been exposed yet? This isn’t the first time they lied to you, it’s just a time they were caught.
> If they were ever doing their jobs this never would have seen the light of day.
Yes, it could not be more obvious that people fucked up.
Now you have an opportunity to decide whether you're more interested in nurturing your retroactive rage and inciting it in others, or if it might make more sense to reinforce the responsible media behavior that you say you want. In my experience, the latter is more effective and better for mental health.
Also, every day Facebook does 10,000 times the damage that this has done. Perspective, people.