There seems to be some debate among NYT editors about reporting on last week’s Christie scandal.
From NYT “Public Editor”:As the Latest Christie Story Evolved, The Times Should Have Noted a Change

what about a case in which an early version of a story says something that proves to be, if not untrue, then at least overstated?

That happened at The Times on Friday. The reporter Kate Zernike broke a story based on a letter from David Wildstein’s lawyer saying that the former ally of Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey “had the evidence to prove” that Mr. Christie knew about the now infamous lane closings at the George Washington Bridge in real time last September. Mr. Christie has consistently stated that he only learned about them recently.

Later, within the hour, the story was changed to soften the wording from “had the evidence” to “evidence exists.” Breaking news alerts had gone out immediately after the first version was posted, which meant that many people read the initial article with its stronger wording.

I asked the Metro editor, Wendell Jamieson, why there was no correction or note.

“We made dozens of changes to this story, and it’s all happening live in front of the reader,” he said. “The story probably went through two dozen versions.” Editors can’t be expected to describe each one of those changes, he said.

And he added that no change, including the one I mention above, “alters the essential truth of the story, which is that a former Christie ally has opened fire on him in a big way.”

Who has seniority here? Shouldn’t the NYT editorial staff make a decision instead of having this play out publically in the Op Ed section?