(2 of 2)
Well, Rosenthal had not meant to imply that Carter offered nothing new; Rosenthal says that it was the Times account that offered nothing new: "The wording may have been unclear in my stumbling way."
So let us moisten our lips and start afresh. Rosenthal thinks it is not enough for a newspaper to correct factual errors; he wants to get at the "more serious defects" of stories that are loaded, overplayed or underplayed, the kind, he says, that as editors "we tear each other's hearts out" about afterhours. He deplores "journalism by water torture," an article that adds one little new fact and then lengthily repeats familiar allegations. On this ground, he felt the Carter review too long. Mere wordiness does not trouble Rosenthal as much as do stories that are repetitiously derogatory to somebody or to some institution, in this case CBS. The aim of his new "Editors' Notes" is to rectify "what the editors consider significant lapses of fairness, balance or perspective." So far, about half a dozen of these contrition boxes have appeared. The ambition is admirable, but it may need the literary touch of a Russell Baker often keep such notes from sounding stuffy or selfconscious. Too often they leave the impression of being things the editors should have thought of earlier.