He said that the words “retraction” and “apology” are not included in the joint agreement or other materials written as part of the public record in the settlement. McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust,” read the “Note to Readers.”īaquet said that the note was not a retraction, and he rejected the notion that the paper had somehow retracted the story otherwise. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Sen. “The article did not state, and the Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. In the past, the Times has used an “Editor’s Note” to acknowledge “lapses of fairness, balance or perspective.” Times Standards Editor Craig Whitney says the paper has never used the “Note to Readers” construction before, so it can’t be described as the “highest level” in a historical context, as Iseman claims she was told. “The Times declined to publish a retraction in no uncertain terms,” the spokesman said. She said that she was told by the Times that the “Note to Readers” is the paper’s “highest level of retraction,” akin to the Times’ notable mea culpa on pre-war reporting from May 2004, titled “From the Editors The Times and Iraq.”Ī Times spokesman said it’s not so. Iseman also takes issue with Baquet’s claim that the Times has not retracted its story. “I wanted to make that clear to my staff that it wasn’t.” “I knew some people would see as the paper retreating from the story,” Baquet said. Iseman’s words leave open the possibility that she was offered some kind of generalized private apology by the Times along the way.īaquet said that he understands that Iseman is “deeply wounded” by the entire ordeal, but he said the paper still believes that “there wasn’t anything wrong with our story.”Īnd his memo to the staff, Baquet said, was not intended to slam Iseman. In the meantime, however, she said that she’s “a woman of her word” and therefore will not specify “what took place in these private negotiations” - except to say that Baquet’s claim that the Times did not apologize is “untrue.” Iseman said that, because the case is over, she believes she can deal directly with Freeman.
Iseman said that she made that request Friday in a phone message to Times assistant general counsel George Freeman a Times spokesman confirmed that Iseman left a message for Freeman but said he can’t talk directly with her because she’s represented by her own lawyer.
After reading Baquet’s memo, she said she has asked the Times to release her from the confidentiality agreement so she can tell her side of the story. Iseman insists there’s more to the story than what’s contained in the materials the Times has published, but she said she can’t say more because she’s bound by a confidentiality agreement related to the settlement. None of these documents contains an apology or a retraction. In Friday’s print edition, there’s “A Note to Readers,” and the Times has posted on its website a joint statement from Iseman’s lawyers and the Times, a statement from her lawyers and a response from Executive Editor Bill Keller. “They are absolutely not telling the truth when they say there is no apology,” Iseman said, later adding, “They are striking first blood against me.”īaquet’s statement is an accurate reflection of what the Times has published in the wake of the settlement. In a memo to Times staff Thursday, Washington Bureau Chief Dean Baquet insisted that, while the paper has settled Iseman’s lawsuit, it “did not apologize” for the story or “retract one word” of it.īut in an interview with POLITICO Friday, Iseman said Baquet’s memo was “calculated” to the point of being false.
0 kommentar(er)
