Patterico's Pontifications: How Prominent Should a Correction Be When It Destroys the Premise of the Original Article?

How Prominent Should a Correction Be When It Destroys the Premise of the Original Article?

When a paper runs an entire article premised on a factual assertion, and that assertion turns out to be wrong, it is sufficient to correct it in a small box on the Corrections page?

I say it's not. A new article should be written, and given the same prominence as the original article, explaining that the fundamental factual basis of the earlier article was wrong.

Isn't this obvious?

Power Line gives a recent example from the New York Times. And I'll remind you of an older example from the Los Angeles Times.

MSM print organs are never going to admit mistakes.

Don't be so naive!