> existence of an unethically reported story, even with a correction, can cause real harm
Yes some professions have bigger consequences for mistakes. If you can't deal with it go do something else. Not an excuse for covering up your mistake. This is downright Orwellian.
First, "don't make mistakes" is a policy so idiotic in its conception that I don't think there exists a good-faith argument for advocating for it.
Second, a "cover-up" is when you hide evidence of your past misconduct. Pleading guilty in public is in every possible way the literal opposite of covering something up. If they'd just deleted the article with no commentary at all, that's covering up the mistake. Leaving the original URL up with a notice that they erred in publishing the original story isn't.
Except it eliminates so much context as to make the apology meaningless. Unless you knew about the existence of the pre-delete story, all you know is that the story used to be one thing, now it's "NPR fucked up".
I find it bizarre that you continue insisting that they are not owning up to their mistakes. They have clearly said the reporting was bad, their editors didn't catch it, and it's their fault. Removing the story is not "covering up." It is mitigating the harm they caused.
What? Retraction: the action of drawing something back or back in. If something is entirely incorrect and someone is trying to produce truthful content, admission and removal is entirely acceptable.
Besides, it very may well have been demanded by their legal department to avoid any repercussions from the mischaracterized party.
Yes some professions have bigger consequences for mistakes. If you can't deal with it go do something else. Not an excuse for covering up your mistake. This is downright Orwellian.