Accountability
Corrections and right to reply
Review reporting corrections, classification changes, and topic-label updates.
Request a correction
Tell us about a factual error or missing context. Identify the case or statement, describe the issue, and link supporting sources. Send requests to [email protected].
Right to reply
Tell us which case or statement you are replying to and whether you are the person named or are writing on their behalf. Explain the concern and link the full source when available. Send requests to [email protected].
A disagreement alone does not change a case. A verified error receives a visible correction. A later public statement is added separately with its own date.
Published correction and maintenance log
Reporting correction
Correction to: Was Apple right to refuse to create software to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone?
- Previous language
- The case context and timeline entry 1779 said the February 16, 2016 order allowed Apple to keep the software at its own facilities.
- Corrected language
- The order said the software could be loaded at a government facility or at an Apple facility with remote access for the government.
Letting Apple keep custody of the software was how the government's February 19 motion described the order, not what the order says. The case context and the timeline entry were corrected.
This corrects our account of what happened.
The order describes safeguards to bypass on the identified phone and permits Apple to keep the software at its facilities. The order was later vacated, without a final merits ruling.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)This motion follows Apple's public refusal and argues for enforcement of the February 16 order. It presents the government's position, not a final judicial ruling.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Classification correction
Correction to: Statement by Human Rights Watch
- Previous classification
- Position Event #5548 classified Human Rights Watch's dispatch as "Challenged the characterization."
- Corrected classification
- The dispatch argues for Apple's resistance to the order, so the classification is "Defended or excused."
In this case Defended or excused means supporting Apple's refusal to create the software the order called for. The dispatch's opening sentence disputes the U.S. government's account of what the refusal is about, but the piece goes on to argue that the refusal protects every technology user's safety and to warn against the precedent the order would set. The quotation was extended by the next sentence, and the title and rationale were revised. The source is unchanged.
This corrects an editorial classification.
Human Rights Watch commentary on Apple's resistance to the San Bernardino order.
Reporting correction
Correction to: Statement by Elizabeth Warren
- Previous language
- Position Event #5532 recorded the joint report with a description in place of a quotation ("Action: Released a joint report arguing that technology companies leave some data-center-driven shared grid costs with other customers."), and its context said the report discusses Google's voluntary substation-funding proposal.
- Corrected language
- The statement now quotes the report's own words on the cost of shared infrastructure, and its context describes the passages around that quotation.
The report states the senators' position in its own words, so a verbatim quotation replaces the description. The report does not discuss Google's proposal to let large customers fund substations voluntarily; it cites testimony filed for Google only for the point that much of this infrastructure would not need to be built but for data center growth. The label and source are unchanged.
This corrects our account of what happened.
Reporting correction
Correction to: Statement by Association of American Publishers
- Previous language
- Position Event #5552's summary said AAP President Maria Pallante "praises the court's treatment of copyright and licensed library ebooks."
- Corrected language
- Pallante welcomes the summary judgment, says the court rejected arguments that would have stretched fair use, and thanks public libraries that lend through ebook licenses.
In AAP's March 24, 2023 statement, Pallante thanks the public libraries that serve their communities through ebook licenses; she does not attribute anything about licensed ebooks to the court. The summary was revised to match. The quotation, label and source are unchanged.
This corrects our account of what happened.
AAP statement responding to the district court's judgment against Internet Archive.
Reporting correction
Correction to: Statement by Sydney Sweeney
- Previous language
- It’s gamedayyyy [caption on a carousel pairing an image from the Novig ad with ESPN "Body Issue" photos of athletes including Serena Williams, Ronda Rousey, Sue Bird, Megan Rapinoe, Caroline Wozniacki, Myles Garrett, Rob Gronkowski, Karl-Anthony Towns, and Jason Kelce]
- Corrected language
- it’s gamedayyy @novig #novigpartner Sydney Sweeney posted images from the Novig ad on Instagram on September 13 with the caption "it's gamedayyy @novig #novigpartner." Fox News reported that she also shared ESPN "Body Issue" photographs of athletes, which TheWrap described as Instagram Stories.
We removed an editorial image description from Sweeney's quotation and restored the caption as displayed in her September 13 Instagram post. The earlier description merged the feed post with separately reported Instagram Stories. The image context now appears outside the quotation with attribution to Fox News and TheWrap. The Fox News report's publication date is September 13, 2026, rather than the previously listed September 15.
This corrects our account of what happened.
Reporting correction
Correction to: How many times will Mike Rogers and his campaign call on Abdul El-Sayed to disavow Hasan Piker?
- Previous language
- August 26, 2026. El-Sayed frames Piker criticism as 'cancel culture' on The Breakfast Club. El-Sayed said there was a 'massive effort to cancel Hasan' and argued the question should be whether one agrees with what a person said, not 'where are you on this one individual.' The interview aired in late August; the exact date and time are not established.
- Corrected language
- August 31, 2026. El-Sayed frames Piker criticism as 'cancel culture' on The Breakfast Club. El-Sayed said there was a 'massive effort to cancel Hasan' and argued the question should be whether one agrees with what a person said, not 'where are you on this one individual.' The Breakfast Club's channel posted the interview on August 31, and Forbes described it as an appearance on Charlamagne tha God's Monday radio show.
The timeline placed the Breakfast Club interview on August 26 without a source for that date. The show's YouTube channel posted the interview on August 31, 2026, and Forbes, in a September 3 report, described the appearance as on Charlamagne tha God's Monday radio show, which was August 31. The entry now carries August 31. The count of twelve appeals does not change.
This corrects our account of what happened.
Reporting correction
Correction to: Did The Front Line Action’s “Family Values” ad use Islamophobic stereotypes against Abdul El-Sayed?
- Previous language
- The FEC independent-expenditure notice reports two September 12 expenditures opposing El-Sayed: $80,000 for media and $12,187.50 for production, $92,187.50 total. These are committee-reported expenditures associated with the communication, not a measured audience or proof of the ad’s effect. The cited Holy Land Foundation litigation also requires care: the Fifth Circuit described the government's unindicted-co-conspirator list as an untested allegation in NAIT's appeal, noted no relevant evidentiary determination had been made, and said broad association language in the district court order went beyond the question before it. The appellate opinion does not address Tayeb or El-Sayed.
- Corrected language
- The FEC notice filed September 14 reports $80,000 for media and $12,187.50 for production opposing El-Sayed, totaling $92,187.50. It lists September 11 as the disbursement or obligation date and September 12 as the dissemination date. These are committee-reported expenditures, not measured audience or effects. The Free Beacon notes that federal prosecutors named ISNA as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial. The Fifth Circuit's 2010 opinion in that case concerns a different organization, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), and does not address Jukaku or El-Sayed. The court described NAIT's inclusion in the government's list of unindicted co-conspirators as an untested allegation, noted that no relevant evidentiary determination had been made for NAIT, and said the district court's broad association language exceeded the question before it. That list and Jukaku's organizational roles do not establish a Muslim Brotherhood tie for El-Sayed.
The FEC filing distinguishes September 11 disbursement or obligation dates from September 12 public dissemination; the amounts and total are unchanged. The court description has also been narrowed to NAIT's inclusion in the government's list. The Fifth Circuit called that inclusion an untested allegation, rather than making that finding about the entire list. The paragraph now states that the opinion concerns NAIT rather than ISNA, and gives the father-in-law's name as Tayeb Jukaku.
Classification correction
Correction to: Statement by William Tong
- Previous classification
- Position Event #548 classified Attorney General Tong's statement as "Condemned," treating his criticism of Kalshi as opposition.
- Corrected classification
- Tong's statement supports Connecticut's lawsuit against Kalshi, so the classification is "Defended or excused."
In this case the labels are measured against Connecticut's regulation of the markets: Condemned means opposing that regulation and Defended or excused means supporting it. The statement criticized the companies while supporting the state's enforcement, so it was mislabeled. The quotation, summary and source are unchanged.
This corrects an editorial classification.
Official announcement of Connecticut's lawsuit against Kalshi. Tong's statement sets out the state's allegations and rationale for suing; it is not a judicial finding.
Classification correction
Correction to: Statement by Ned Lamont
- Previous classification
- Position Event #547 classified Governor Lamont's statement as "Condemned," treating his criticism of the companies as opposition.
- Corrected classification
- Lamont's statement supports Connecticut's enforcement against the prediction-market companies, so the classification is "Defended or excused."
In this case the labels are measured against Connecticut's regulation of the markets: Condemned means opposing that regulation and Defended or excused means supporting it. The statement criticized the companies while supporting the state's enforcement, so it was mislabeled. The quotation, summary and source are unchanged.
This corrects an editorial classification.
Lamont's allegations accompanying the September enforcement announcement.
Reporting correction
Correction to: Statement by David B. Wheeler
- Previous language
- The context said "Boebert's September 20 press release denied the allegations and said Wheeler "likely committed perjury and broke a federal law"."
- Corrected language
- The context now says Boebert's office revised its September 20 press release, which had attributed its denial to a spokesperson, and that the revised release, last modified on September 22, says Wheeler "also likely committed perjury and broke a federal law".
The September 20 version of the release, which an archive copy preserves, does not contain the sentence about perjury. The sentence appears in the revised release, which the page shows as last modified on September 22. The context attributed the sentence to the earlier release.
This corrects our account of what happened.
Boebert’s congressional office rejects the complaint’s allegations, describes the filing as politically motivated, and discusses the House Ethics Committee’s complaint procedures. Those procedural and factual characterizations are attributed to the office, not treated as a committee determination.
Classification correction
Correction to: Statement by Rapid Response 47
- Previous classification
- Position Event #4890 classified the Rapid Response 47 post as "Defended or excused."
- Corrected classification
- The statement disputes the critics' reading of the remark and offers a different one, so the classification is "Challenged the characterization."
In this case Defended or excused would mean arguing that an Iranian attack on Los Angeles or San Diego would be acceptable. The statement does not argue that; it rejects the critics' interpretation and gives the White House's. The rationale was revised to match.
This corrects an editorial classification.
Post by the White House's Rapid Response 47 account on X, quoting a Los Angeles Times post that linked its story headlined "Trump suggests letting Iran 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego at campaign rally."
Classification correction
Correction to: Statement by Steven Cheung
- Previous classification
- Position Event #4889 classified Steven Cheung's statement as "Defended or excused."
- Corrected classification
- The statement disputes the critics' reading of the remark and offers a different one, so the classification is "Challenged the characterization."
In this case Defended or excused would mean arguing that an Iranian attack on Los Angeles or San Diego would be acceptable. The statement does not argue that; it rejects the critics' interpretation and gives the White House's. The rationale was revised to match.
This corrects an editorial classification.
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung's post on X, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
Reporting correction
Correction to: Statement by Jace Ratzlaff
- Previous language
- The summary said Ratzlaff "said Wheeler's claim that an ex-husband of a staff member is one of his sources is not true."
- Corrected language
- The summary now says Ratzlaff said he is not one of Wheeler's sources.
CBS Colorado reports that Ratzlaff denied being one of Wheeler's sources. It does not report that he denied that any staffer's ex-husband is a source. The title and rationale were revised to match.
This corrects our account of what happened.
CBS Colorado reports that Boebert supplied a signed copy of a temporary protection order requiring Wheeler to avoid contact with her and stay at least 100 yards away. The same report quotes Wheeler saying that two sources have given statements and would testify, says Jace Ratzlaff, the ex-husband of one of the staffers, told CBS Colorado he is not one of Wheeler's sources, and describes a polygraph examination that Ratzlaff says he took voluntarily, administered by examiner Stephen Daniels of Proof Positive Testing. The structured page data gives September 24 at 8:02 p.m. Mountain time as the publication time; the page body shows an October 1 update.
Reporting correction
Correction to: Statement by David B. Wheeler
- Previous language
- The title said David B. Wheeler "says his two sources gave statements to the House Ethics Committee and would testify."
- Corrected language
- The title now says David B. Wheeler says his two sources would testify and their statements were provided to the House Ethics Committee.
Wheeler's quoted words say the statements were provided to the Committee without saying who provided them. The title and rationale made the sources the senders. The rationale now also states that Wheeler offers the statements in support of the allegations, that he names no sources and that CBS Colorado reports no Committee confirmation, and the context notes that we could not locate one.
This corrects our account of what happened.
CBS Colorado reports that Boebert supplied a signed copy of a temporary protection order requiring Wheeler to avoid contact with her and stay at least 100 yards away. The same report quotes Wheeler saying that two sources have given statements and would testify, says Jace Ratzlaff, the ex-husband of one of the staffers, told CBS Colorado he is not one of Wheeler's sources, and describes a polygraph examination that Ratzlaff says he took voluntarily, administered by examiner Stephen Daniels of Proof Positive Testing. The structured page data gives September 24 at 8:02 p.m. Mountain time as the publication time; the page body shows an October 1 update.
Classification correction
Correction to: Statement by Walid Hakim
- Previous classification
- Position Event #4860 classified the statement as "Condemned" and placed it on the Limit retention and use step.
- Corrected classification
- The statement rejects Palantir, Flock and the companies connected to them but says the objection is not to having a network of cameras, so the classification is "Mixed or conditional" and the placement is Guardrails, keep using.
The label treated the statement as rejecting license-plate camera networks. The speaker rejects these vendors and objects to easy law-enforcement access and company use of travel data, but says the objection is not to the idea of a network of cameras. Published statements that reject a vendor while accepting the technology are recorded as Mixed or conditional on the Guardrails step. The rationale was revised to match.
This corrects an editorial classification.
Emailed statement from Walid Hakim to Dispute Index on Flock license-plate cameras
Good evening, We oppose Palantir and all companies associated with them, including Flock. It’s not the idea of having a network of cameras that we oppose. It’s the easy access by law enforcement to allow abuse, stalking and unauthorized surveillance, and the data being collected by these companies of our travel habits to be used for their own purposes. Walid Hakim
Reporting correction
Correction to: Did Jon Ossoff’s Social Security ad fairly represent Mike Collins’s radio interview?
- Previous language
- A second Ossoff television advertisement, “Important – Social Security 30s,” begins airing, reusing the same Collins audio clip and adding the assertion that Collins “voted to gut Social Security.” This is the advertisement PolitiFact rated on September 15, not the earlier one. PolitiFact dates the first ad, “Attacking (30s),” to August 7, 2026, while FactCheck.org and AdImpact date the start of its airing to August 8; this case records August 8 for the first ad.
- Corrected language
- A second Ossoff television advertisement, "Important - Social Security 30s," begins airing, reusing the same Collins audio clip. FactCheck.org reports that both Ossoff ads claim that "Collins voted to gut Social Security," citing his March vote for a balanced budget amendment, and PolitiFact's September 15 ruling covers the claims "in two TV ads." PolitiFact dates the first ad, "Attacking (30s)," to August 7, 2026, while FactCheck.org and AdImpact date the start of its airing to August 8; this case records August 8 for the first ad.
We said the second ad added the claim that Collins "voted to gut Social Security" and that PolitiFact rated only the second ad. FactCheck.org reports that both ads make that claim, and PolitiFact's ruling covers the claims made in two TV ads. The timeline entry now says so and cites FactCheck.org.
This corrects our account of what happened.
Reporting correction
Correction to: Was a Border Patrol agent justified in shooting Luis David Niño-Moncada and Yorlenys Zambrano-Contreras in Portland?
- Previous language
- Federal court filings unsealed September 13, 2026 disclosed that a Portland Police Bureau officer's body camera captured a Border Patrol agent attempting to remove an unfired .223-caliber rifle cartridge from the shooting scene before the officer intervened to preserve the evidence.
- Corrected language
- A defense sentencing memo filed September 11, 2026, and reported after its release on September 13, disclosed that a Portland Police Bureau officer's body camera captured a Border Patrol agent attempting to remove an unfired .223-caliber rifle cartridge from the shooting scene before the officer intervened to preserve the evidence.
We dated the disclosure to court filings unsealed September 13, 2026. KPTV and OPB report that the information came from a defense sentencing memo filed Friday, September 11; KPTV reported it on September 13. The timeline entry is now dated September 11 and describes the filing.
This corrects our account of what happened.
Classification correction
Correction to: Statement by Dave Aronberg
- Previous classification
- Position Event #4745 classified the statement as "Condemned," which in this case records an assertion that Alexis Wilkins is a foreign intelligence "honeypot."
- Corrected classification
- The statement rejects the accusations against Wilkins without asserting the proposition, so the classification is "Challenged the characterization."
The label was applied as if Condemned meant criticizing Schaffer or the accusations. In this case Condemned records only an assertion of the honeypot proposition, which this speaker does not make. The quotation, summary and rationale were revised to match.
This corrects an editorial classification.
The full episode includes Seraphin's remarks followed by Kelly's response and legal analysis from Aronberg and Spilbor.
Archived copyClassification correction
Correction to: Statement by Xaviaer DuRousseau
- Previous classification
- Position Event #4737 classified the statement as "Condemned," which in this case records an assertion that Alexis Wilkins is a foreign intelligence "honeypot."
- Corrected classification
- The statement rejects the accusations against Wilkins without asserting the proposition, so the classification is "Challenged the characterization."
The label was applied as if Condemned meant criticizing Schaffer or the accusations. In this case Condemned records only an assertion of the honeypot proposition, which this speaker does not make. The quotation, summary and rationale were revised to match.
This corrects an editorial classification.
DuRousseau's caption evaluates Schaffer's honeypot implication and rebuts the explanation in the quoted post.
Classification correction
Correction to: Statement by Ashton Forbes
- Previous classification
- Position Event #4736 classified the statement as "Condemned," which in this case records an assertion that Alexis Wilkins is a foreign intelligence "honeypot."
- Corrected classification
- The statement rejects the accusations against Wilkins without asserting the proposition, so the classification is "Challenged the characterization."
The label was applied as if Condemned meant criticizing Schaffer or the accusations. In this case Condemned records only an assertion of the honeypot proposition, which this speaker does not make. The quotation, summary and rationale were revised to match.
This corrects an editorial classification.
Forbes's reply welcomes the suit news and disavows Schaffer. The parent post identifies the Mossad-agent allegation being discussed.
Reporting correction
Correction to: Is Alexis Wilkins a foreign 'honeypot' agent, as Kyle Seraphin and other commentators suggested?
- Previous language
- We did not find the settlement's terms or a public statement by either side about them.
- Corrected language
- On September 9, 2026, Schaffer [posted on X](https://x.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/2097784405531971985) that his September 2025 post "implied she was operating as a foreign intelligence asset," apologized for that implication and wrote, "Alexis Wilkins is not, and has never been, a foreign intelligence operative, foreign asset, or honeypot of any kind. There is no factual basis to suggest otherwise." Patel [quote-posted](https://x.com/Kash_Patel/status/2097833023978774903) the retraction that evening with a single period and no other words. We did not find the settlement's terms or whether the retraction was one of them.
We said we found no public statement by either side about the Schaffer settlement. Schaffer had posted a public retraction on X on September 9, 2026, which Kash Patel quote-posted the same evening. The case summary, the context section, the Schaffer statement and the dismissal timeline entry now record the retraction, and a timeline entry for it has been added.
This corrects our account of what happened.
Reporting correction
Correction to: Statement by Greg Jackson
- Previous language
- Jackson cited the dismissal as support for the civil claim that the shooting and prosecution were wrongful.
- Corrected language
- Jackson cited the agreement for a possible future dismissal as support for his civil claim that the shooting and prosecution were wrongful.
We described Greg Jackson as citing a completed dismissal. His May 8 remarks concerned a diversion agreement for a future dismissal. The May 6 court filing says prosecutors may seek dismissal with prejudice after the diversion term ends on October 31, 2026. It does not record a completed dismissal. The context should distinguish the agreement from a dismissal order.
This corrects our account of what happened.
Joint stipulation stating that the parties reached a diversion agreement and that the government may seek dismissal with prejudice after October 31, 2026. It also says Jimenez maintained his not-guilty plea.
Reporting correction
Correction to: Statement by Jace Ratzlaff
- Previous language
- Reached by Colorado Times Recorder, Jace Ratzlaff, the ex-husband of Clarice Navarro Ratzlaff, said he assumed the matter would eventually surface but declined to comment further. Reached again by phone, he said divorce is painful, that he has children and is three years post-divorce, and that this is not his issue to address, declining to elaborate.
- Corrected language
- In a statement included in American Muckrakers' release of an ethics complaint against Rep. Lauren Boebert, Jace Ratzlaff, the ex-husband of former Boebert district director Clarice Navarro, said he assumed the matter would eventually surface and would have no further comment. Reached by phone by Colorado Times Recorder, he said divorce is painful, that he has children and is three years post-divorce, and that it is not his issue, and declined to elaborate.
We said Colorado Times Recorder reached Ratzlaff when he said he assumed the matter would eventually surface. The Colorado Times Recorder reports that this statement was included in American Muckrakers' release of the complaint, and that its reporter reached him by phone afterward. The summary now attributes each remark to the exchange in which he made it.
This corrects our account of what happened.
Reporting correction
Correction to: Was the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire's 'assassination' post a threat of political violence?
- Previous language
- InDepthNH.org attributed the post to party chair Jeremy Kauffman, and it was later deleted.
- Corrected language
- InDepthNH.org attributed the post to party chair Jeremy Kauffman. The Boston Globe and Boston.com described it as deleted, while InDepthNH.org reported on September 23 that it remained live and that party chair Jeremy Kauffman said it had not been taken down.
We stated that the post was later deleted. Reporting differs: the Boston Globe and Boston.com describe it as deleted, while InDepthNH.org reported on September 23 that it remained live on X and that party chair Jeremy Kauffman said it had not been taken down. We have no archive of the post to settle the point. The case summary, the context section and the September 22 timeline entry now say that reports differ, and notes on three sources no longer call it the deleted post.
This corrects our account of what happened.