They're now crawling back and begging for forgiveness.
The public editor of The New York Times has joined a growing number of journalists and pundits who are backing away from key elements of their initial coverage of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri.
Margaret Sullivan, the Times' in-house critic and reader liaison, wrote on Monday that she was wrong last year to call out her Times colleagues because they quoted unnamed sources who supported Officer Darren Wilson's account of the fateful Aug. 9 encounter.
"Now, with the benefit of hindsight, I want to acknowledge that I misjudged an important element of that story," Sullivan wrote in her blog.
In the earlier post, Sullivan ripped an Aug. 20 Times story, "Shooting Accounts Differ As Holder Schedules Visit to Ferguson," as "an object lesson in the problems of dubious equivalency and anonymous sources."
Her charge was that Times reporters and editors wrongly gave equal weight to conflicting accounts of the shooting, despite having named sources for eyewitness claims that Brown had his hands up in attempted surrender, and only "ghosts" — anonymous police sources — who said Brown was advancing on Wilson when he was shot.
The claims of the former became the basis for the "Hands up, Don't Shoot!" rallying cry that was acted out and chanted at protests across the country, and worn on T-shirts as part of a movement that painted Brown as a victim of race-conscious police brutality.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com NYTimes Public Editor I Was Wrong About Ferguson
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!