Correction, New York Times
Credit where credit is due.
From the New York Times last week:
Mr. Epstein was first charged, on a single count of prostitution, in 2006, one year before the marina deal became final, although allegations had been swirling for years. The victim in the charge had been 14 years old. He pleaded guilty to that charge in 2008.
Jeffrey Epstein signed a non-prosecution agreement on September 24, 2007, pleading guilty to two charges. The first was for solicitation of a 19-year-old. The second, for “solicitation of minors to engage of prostitution,” involved a 17-year-old. He was never convicted of anything involving a 14-year-old. I wrote to reporter Debra Kamin, who helped restore my faith in journalism today by replying:
Thanks for writing. There were multiple victims whose testimony was taken into account under that single charge. The initial victim who led to the charge being filed was 14, but it gets complicated, which you’re right to point out. We’re going to tweak the sentence to make it a bit clearer. Thanks for reaching out.
The change as of now is “the victim in the charge had been as young as 14 years old,” which doesn’t feel quite right either, but still.
I mentioned before Thanksgiving that I’m working on a project that will make me a loathed figure. This is it, a review of the Epstein saga, which I’ve come to believe is the worst-reported story of the era. Kamin and one diligent USA Today reporter are so far the only journalists to respond out of dozens I’ve contacted about easily fixable problems. Still, there are far bigger issues, of the type Michael Tracey, Jay Beecher, and not many others have grappled with, that make this story incredible. It’s like Satan’s own game of Telephone! More on it later (we have a few irons in the fire here at Racket), but I wanted to give Kamin and the Times credit for the prompt reply, at a time when those are rare.

Very fair of you. Tracy, who seems to be a bit of a misanthrope, has been dogged on this story trying to “stick to the facts”. He seems to be an old school, annoying “journalist” asking impertinent questions. Just what we need.
Not a strong enough move to get me to resubscribe to the New York Times, but it is heartening that there’s at least one good journalist on the payroll.