Lamest 'Correction' Ever

It's bad enough that Maureen Dowd plagiarizes a blog, but when the New York Times goes and runs an alleged correction, they don't even throw the guy a link.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: May 18, 2009
Maureen Dowd’s column on Sunday, about torture, failed to attribute a paragraph about the timeline for prisoner abuse to Josh Marshall’s blog at Talking Points Memo.

Now it's likely anyone who subjects themselves to the torture of reading Dowd probably also frequents the far left blogs. But the least the Times could do is provide a direct link back to the item in question.

Lame. Very lame.

Seemingly the rest of the blogosphere weighs in here.

Not that Dowd had much credibility, but what little she had is irrevocably shattered. How can she ever be taken seriously when she's lifting material from blogs? I thought blogs were beneath the dignity of these esteemed journalists and their layers upon layers of fact-checking?