The linked article is from January 5 2022, a year less a day after the events in question, right? So it doesn't contradict a claim about the original reporting.
First article google search returns today != the first time NYT reported these things including clarifications as they became public which was months after the event around April 2021, and widely reported in detail by the press at that time.
In regards to the underlying events, and my motivation for commenting, it is splitting hairs. Media reported what was established at the time but none of it significantly changes the core history of what happened on Jan 6. The protest was violent with lots of assaults and injuries. This is now extensively documented, even with investigations still well in progress.
> The article contradicts your claim "reported and quietly fixed days later without ever really owning up to it".
It doesn't contradict the initial claim since the article to which you linked is from a year later. What you would need to do is establish the historical chronology of newspaper articles that did not report police lies and then quietly correct the record days later. Otherwise your counterclaim is very weak.
> Media reported what was established at the time
News media do not report what is established at any time. What is established is by nature not news. The presence of claims in the media are then used to convince people of what information is established as true. By uncritically repeating lies news media has been fanning conflict since before the sinking of the Maine.
In regards to the underlying events, and my motivation for commenting, it is splitting hairs. Media reported what was established at the time but none of it significantly changes the core history of what happened on Jan 6. The protest was violent with lots of assaults and injuries. This is now extensively documented, even with investigations still well in progress.