The writer of a lengthy New York Times article on New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez's corruption trial apologized Monday for an "oversight" after originally omitting the embattled lawmaker's Democratic Party affiliation from the story.
In an article nearly 1,300 words long on Menendez's federal bribery trial, the first one for a sitting U.S. senator in 36 years, writer Nick Corasaniti initially did not mention once that Menendez is a Democrat.
https://twitter.com/dmartosko/status/904881605378019329
The New York Times wrote a 1,288 word article that never once informs the reader that the Senator facing a bribery trial is a Democrat. https://t.co/qJ742kB4en
— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) September 5, 2017
Not one mention that Senator Menendez is Democrat. Oh wait, it's The NY Times. #InconvienientFact https://t.co/9UZwc4nQBD
— Allan Bartlett (@allanbartlett) September 5, 2017
Corasaniti replied to one tweet Monday evening noting Republican complaints about the omission, saying it was an "oversight." The story now states in the fourth paragraph that Menendez is a Democrat, but does not note that the article was updated.
Rs in my feed complaining @NYTnickc piece abt Bob Menendez doesn't mention he's a Democrat. I'll admit: It's ... odd https://t.co/iWqoP2HQfi
— Evan Smith (@evanasmith) September 5, 2017
Thanks Evan. Not odd, just an oversight on my part after drafts. Adding back now.
— Nick Corasaniti (@NYTnickc) September 5, 2017
Menendez is charged with 12 corruption-related counts, including six counts of bribery, stemming from a longtime friendship with a wealthy Florida ophthalmologist, Dr. Salomon Melgen, the Times reported:
Indeed, the defense for Mr. Menendez is unlikely to dispute some of the facts; that Dr. Salomon Melgen, a wealthy Florida ophthalmologist, bestowed on the senator lavish gifts of private flights, luxury accommodations, and free vacations—all which Mr. Menendez initially failed to disclose—and he made more than $700,000 in direct and indirect political contributions to Mr. Menendez.
The legal case revolves around whether those gifts were permissible as gifts a friend could give to another, or whether they were part of a longstanding bribery arrangement where Mr. Menendez would intervene to protect the financial and personal interests of Dr. Melgen in return for his gifts and donations.