An explanation that falls short
Tucked into this New York Times correction (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/pageoneplus/corrections.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=corrections&st=nyt&oref=slogin) - about a boy's injured feet in Zimbabwe - is something else of interest. The Times did a good job explaining how it pursued the truth after finding out an earlier claim wasn't true. But why was there only a passing, cryptic reference to the newspaper's decision to cross a line from reporting to helping? Readers deserve to know more, especially since it apparently was this Times-directed twist in the story that brought the false information to light.