The tale of The New Republic and their lurid article about US soldiers in Iraq, “Shock Troops,” takes an interesting turn today, as Ace notices that the New York Times altered their piece about the controversy to remove a potentially damning quote from New Republic editor Franklin Foer.

By coincidence, I actually had a posting window open to the New York Times article from early this morning, containing an excerpt, but for one reason or another didn’t get around to posting it. When Ace emailed about this, I went back and looked at that window—and sure enough, it had the deleted quote: Doubts Raised on Magazine’s ‘Baghdad Diarist’.

“Now that these questions have been raised, we’ve launched an inquiry. We’re putting the full resources of the magazine to look into the story,” Mr. Foer said. “It’s taking me a little bit longer than I wish it did. The author, not to mention some of the participants in the anecdotes he described, are active duty soldiers and they’re on 20-hour active combat missions sometimes, and it’s very difficult for me to get them all on the phone to ask them the questions that I’d like to ask.”

The diaries have described some shocking incidents of military life, including soldiers openly mocking a disfigured woman on their base and a private wearing a found piece of a child’s skull under his helmet.

The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with “near certainty” that he is, in fact, a soldier.

The Times article prompted a terse note at TNR blog The Plank:

TNR readers may have seen this story in the New York Times today. The story says that TNR knows with “near certainty” that Scott Thomas is a soldier in Iraq. In fact, we know this with absolute certainty.

And now the last sentence in the Times piece has been revised without notice to read:

He said that he had met the writer and that he knows that he is, in fact, a soldier.

Is the Times correcting a mistake, or trying to run interference for the New Republic? It’s long past the point where I’d give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.

UPDATE at 7/24/07 12:17:42 pm:

There’s nothing about the change on the Times Corrections page.

UPDATE at 7/24/07 12:48:41 pm:

Here’s the New York Times’ corrections policy: Q&A on The Times’s Correction Policy.

Corrections

Because its voice is loud and far-reaching, The Times recognizes an ethical responsibility to correct all its factual errors, large and small (even misspellings of names), promptly and in a prominent reserved space in the paper. A correction serves all readers, not just those who were injured or who complained, so it must be self-explanatory, tersely recalling the context and the background while repairing the error.

A complaint from any source should be relayed to a responsible editor and investigated quickly. If a correction is warranted, it should follow immediately. In the rare case of a delay longer than a month, the correction should include an explanation (saying, for example, how recently the error was discovered, or why the checking took so long). If the justification is lame or lacking, the correction should acknowledge a reporting or editing lapse.

UPDATE at 7/24/07 2:43:21 pm:

The Times has changed their article again.

He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with “near certainty” that he is, in fact, a soldier.

After this article appeared, Mr. Foer said he was “absolutely certain” that the author is a soldier.