What does it mean that 'New York Times sat on Russian story'?

Well, if we consider the common scenarios, it might be a story related to diplomatic relations. For example, it could be about a meeting between American and Russian diplomats in New York, and the New York Times is covering it. Another possibility is that it's a story about ordinary Americans and a Russian who are involved in something unique, like a scientific research project or an art exhibition that caught the attention of the New York Times.

Perhaps there were behind - the - scenes negotiations or discussions going on that made them hold off. For example, if the story involved sensitive diplomatic matters, they might have been asked to delay publication until certain diplomatic efforts were made.

I don't know the exact connection without more information. It could be anything really.

It could mean that The New York Times has made alterations to a news article or narrative they were previously reporting. Maybe new information came to light, or they had to correct some inaccuracies in the original story.

Well, 'New York Times changes story' might imply that the editorial decisions within the New York Times led to a shift in how a particular story was presented. This could be due to various factors such as public feedback, updated research, or a change in the overall narrative they want to convey. For example, if they were covering a political event and new developments occurred that changed the context, they would change the story to reflect the accurate situation.

It means that the story they previously published about Sicknick was incorrect in some way, so they are taking it back. This could be due to new evidence coming to light or inaccuracies in their initial reporting.

It means that they found an error in a previously published story. Maybe there were inaccuracies in the facts, misquotes, or wrong interpretations. So, they take the step to correct it to maintain their credibility.

Well, 'recant' means to take back or withdraw something that was previously said or published. So when the New York Times recants the Kavanaugh story, it implies that they've realized there were flaws in their reporting. It could be due to new evidence emerging, or perhaps they made errors in their fact - checking process. This is a significant step as the Kavanaugh case has been a highly controversial and widely covered topic, and any change in reporting about it can have a big impact on public perception.

It could mean that the New York Times crossword has some aspect or situation that is separate or distinct from what was being previously discussed. Maybe there's a particular puzzle in the crossword that has a unique or unexpected solution or theme that makes it 'another story' compared to typical crossword puzzles.

It means the New York Times has admitted that the story about Clinton and Tulsi was incorrect and is taking it back. Maybe there were inaccuracies in the reporting, like false information or misinterpretation of sources.