It means the New York Times had to take back or withdraw the story related to Sicknick. Maybe they found out that the information in the story was inaccurate, untrue, or couldn't be verified.
Well, sometimes in the rush to break a story, journalists at the Washington Times might not have fact - checked thoroughly enough. If they later find out that key elements of the story were inaccurate, they would retract it. It could also be pressure from outside sources, like public outcry if the story was offensive or unethical in some way. Or perhaps they realized they violated their own editorial standards during the reporting process.
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.
One reason could be inaccuracies in their sources. Journalistic integrity demands that if the information they initially reported was based on false or misinterpreted data, they have to retract. Maybe new evidence emerged that contradicted their original story about Sicknick.
The retraction of the Clinton Tulsi story by the New York Times implies that there were problems with the story they originally published. This could be due to a variety of reasons. For instance, the journalists might have been misled by sources with their own agendas. Or perhaps there was a miscommunication within the editorial process. This retraction is important as it aims to set the record straight. It also has implications for the credibility of the New York Times. If they make such a mistake, it makes people wonder about the reliability of their other stories as well. However, it is also a sign that they are willing to correct their errors, which is a positive aspect in the world of journalism.
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.
The impact on readership can be significant. Some readers who were very invested in the original story may feel misled. They may question the overall credibility of the Washington Times. This could lead to a decrease in readership as some people might choose to stop reading the paper altogether or at least be more cautious when consuming its news. On the other hand, some readers might appreciate the transparency of the retraction, but overall it's a blow to the paper's reputation among its readership.
It was Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey from The New York Times. Their work on this story was so important. They risked a lot in investigating and reporting on Weinstein. Their story was the first domino to fall in what became a much larger movement against sexual harassment. They were committed to getting the truth out, and their efforts changed the conversation around harassment in Hollywood and beyond.
The NY Times Weinstein story was a turning point. It shined a very bright light on the long - standing issue of sexual harassment by powerful men like Weinstein. This story not only affected Weinstein's career and reputation but also sent shockwaves throughout the entertainment industry. Studios and production companies started to re - evaluate their policies regarding harassment. It also emboldened other women in different industries to speak out against similar abuse they had endured.
I'm not sure specifically as I haven't read that exact 'the lottery ny times story'. It could be about a lottery event in New York, perhaps covering things like the winners, the impact on their lives, or the process of the lottery in that area.