The New York Times put a "production" note where the Weiner article once was(Credit: NYT, screenshot)
The New York Times unpublished a story about women to whom then-Congressman Anthony Weiner sent sexts back in 2011, according to Times public editor Margaret Sullivan.
The article in question, “For Women in Weiner Scandal, Indignity Lingers,” focused on the impact of receiving Weiner’s messages.
While Sullivan noted that the Times ordinarily doesn’t unpublish, the article in question was deleted because a Times spokesperson said “It was published inadvertently.”
It appears Politico was the first to spot the unpublishing.
Based on her research in the newsroom, Sullivan reported that it seems the article wasn’t supposed to be published yet but that the Times didn’t confirm if the article would ever go up in full. However, Sullivan noted she wasn’t able to get a full account of what went wrong from either the Times public relations, or the editor or writer involved in the story, both of whom bounced her back to PR. She wrote:
“From what I’ve been able to piece together, there was a miscommunication among Times editors. Some thought the article was ready to go, and sent it on through the editorial production cycle. At least one other editor — higher up on the food chain — disagreed about its readiness and did not intend it to be published, at least not at that point.”
In place of the article is a June 10 “production note” reading “An article was posted on this page inadvertently, before it was ready for publication.”
iMediaEthics has written numerous times about media coverage of Weiner. In April, the New York Post stole 82% of its front page story on Weiner from the New York Times Magazine’s exclusive interview with Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin. The Post repackaged 1,538 words of quotes from the Times article into its own cover story.
Also, in January, the New York Post confused Weiner with an Andrew Wiener. The Post reported that Weiner, the former representative, got a job at a broker/dealer firm, but the Post was wrong and unpublished its article because it thought the firm’s Andrew Wiener was the same as the disgraced Weiner. Whoops.
