New York Times editor calls for 'systemic change' after botched San Bernardino story

Less than 24 hours after The New York Times added a three-paragraph editor's note to an anonymously sourced article on San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik, The New York Times' public editor Margaret Sullivan condemned the paper's lack of skepticism.

Sullivan charges that the story's incorrect allegation that Malik "talked openly on social media" about radicalism stems from a "failure of sufficient skepticism at every level of the reporting and editing process" and too heavy a reliance on anonymous government sources — a sign, Sullivan says, that "systemic change" is necessary:

This marks the second instance the Times has posted an editor's note on a "front-page, anonymously sourced" story in the last six months. In July, the paper incorrectly alleged that Hillary Clinton was the subject of a criminal inquiry regarding her email use as secretary of state, resulting in the paper issuing two corrections alongside an editor's note.

The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.

Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.

Sign up

"That's not acceptable for Times readers or for the paper's credibility, which is its most precious asset," Sullivan writes. "If this isn't a red alert, I don't know what will be."