Epic? Can you qualify? One might want to evaluate the uniqueness of the sourcing. If one source is merely echoing what others are saying, that's a few notches under "epic" in my book. Obviously, the shooter's name is big, and it had some major short-term consequences, but I suspect those were not irreversible -- again, not quite epic. Curiously, one of the questions Margaret Sullivan mentioned was regarding the guns used. And last check the paper had reversed again (authorities confirming that a rifle *was* used). It would be handy to have a contextual scorecard here -- if Media Bugs is running out of steam, then perhaps someone else.

I can't remember the Times getting so many key facts wrong (apart from Jayson Blair and Judith Miller's stuff) in the news pages of the print edition, which presumably has gone through serious editing. The Times relies on its credibility more than most news organizations. What happened with this story is a terrible sign of things to come, I fear.

I can't contest your memory, and, as such, it's not the best source for public debate. It seems to me that there could be concrete, objective measures of press failures. Obviously, in the case of Blair and Miller, the NYT was the sole or lead source, and thus more culpable. And Miller's reporting had clearly permanent consequences.

I've been away from the news-bugs beat for sometime now, and I'm ever wistful that efforts like NewsTrust & Media Bugs have very low public impact.

The problem remains unsolved. On that we agree. It's partly why I'm so adamant that this is at least as much a demand issue as a supply one.

Agreed. If one wants to start the blame game (again, with understanding the scope/impact), one can go to the tweeter-repeaters, as Wolff does: guardian.co.uk