While we await the Times's correction of its error regarding John McCain last week, let us ponder the Times's memorable March 30 correction of this March 16 article:

An article on March 16 profiling three sex workers in the wake of Gov. Eliot Spitzer's resignation after revelations that he patronized prostitutes misconstrued how two of the women, identified by the pseudonyms Faith O'Donnell and Sally Anderson, said they earned a living. The resulting misrepresentation of the two women's work included a headline that referred to them as "high-priced call girls" and a paragraph that said they practiced "the 21st-century version of the oldest profession."

The reporter who interviewed them, one of two who worked on the article, never explicitly asked the women whether they traded sex for money or were prostitutes, call girls or escorts; he used the term "sex workers," a term they used themselves that describes strippers and lap dancers as well as prostitutes. Though Ms. Anderson advertises herself as a "dominatrix with a holistic approach," he did not ask her whether that meant she also performed sex acts for money, nor did he ask Ms. O'Donnell what her work actually was before characterizing it. He and the editors should have explored whether he had determined these things precisely.

After the article was published, both women contacted The Times and said they do not perform sex for money; Ms. O'Donnell refused to be specific about what she does.

Via the Weekly Standard's Scrapbook, which recognizes the Times in this case for its "holistic approach" to correcting its utterly meaningless potential errors regarding these two pseudonymous women.