Writing an Op-Ed, NY Times style

Whenever I talk to people about the NY Times, I focus on what they read in on the editorial page. Not the page that is written by guests, but the one that is written by the actual editors, containing the opinion of "the paper." As I've pointed out to many people, you can find out just how liberal the NY Times is by reading their editorials.

But sometimes, you can get how liberal the NY Times is by reading their Op-Ed pieces too. Particularly when the NYT re-writes the Op-Eds to change the tone.

In this case, the following correction appeared in the NY Times

The Op-Ed page in some copies yesterday carried an incorrect version of an article about military recruitment. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, 'Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday,' nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a 'surprise tour of Iraq.' That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error.

Curious?
Sure, you would be. I mean, how would they incorrectly get the impression that Phillip Carter, the person writing the article wrote: "Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders..."
Or the phrase "surprise tour of Iraq"
See, this is the thing. The NY Times called him up and suggested those phrases. Let me repeat. The NY Times called him up and suggested those phrases.
Its pretty clear to me that they wanted to make him sound bitter about being called up on reserve. This is how the NY Times defended themselves against such a charge:

"We try to clarify and improve copy," said Mr. Shipley. "We do this for the benefit of our contributors, many of whom are not professional writers. We do not impose language on them - if they want something out or something in, we accede to their wishes. They have final sign-off"

They don't ty to impose language on them? They clarify copy? Bullshit. Adding in the phrase "Imagine my surprise" is not "clarifying," and the editors at the NY Times know it.
But Carter didn't bite. He said "no" and the NY Times meant to change it back to his original wording. Only they forgot to, and the article went up online. Carter caught it, and told them to kill it before it went to print.

This, the NY Times did, and much to their credit.
What isn't to their credit is that they are suggesting wording in a piece that clearly changes its meaning. If you never believed that they were liberal before, this should at least give you pause.