After the terrible shooting yesterday in Alexandria, it didn’t take long for the crazy people to find their Twitter accounts. Nor did it take long for politicians, pundits and commentators to offer their opinions.

And then there’s the New York Times editorial board.

The Times editorial that ran yesterday regarding the shooting was execrable. Here is the money quote of what they wrote.

This paragraph in today's NYT editorial on Alexandria shootings is offensively, quasi-Stalinistically wrong: https://t.co/nWhhcHfMso pic.twitter.com/LkJFifUh73

— Jeff B/DDHQ (@EsotericCD) June 15, 2017

My God I missed this gem in the next paragraph, which only proves my point. pic.twitter.com/749tTHIbpW

— Jeff B/DDHQ (@EsotericCD) June 15, 2017

As David French points out in his commentary, this is only made worse because the New York Times ITSELF investigated Loughner’s motivations when the attack that wounded Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people, and showed, very conclusively, that Loughner was mentally ill and had become obsessed with Giffords herself.

But why would the editorial board bother reading its own investigative journalists’ work when Sarah Palin could be smeared wholesale yet again?

Fortunately, Palin is having none of that.

Sarah Palin calls @nytimes editorial "sickening" pic.twitter.com/ho0C6W21Qw

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) June 15, 2017

And then the Times issued a teeny tiny little correction at the bottom of the editorial, and added that same caveat to the Palin paragraph.

New York Times issues correction to editorial pic.twitter.com/pxNYL3ftGM

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) June 15, 2017

Here's the before and after of the two paragraphs from the @nytimes editorial pic.twitter.com/n8GJvHSl2C

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) June 15, 2017

This is also called the “please don’t sue us” CYA correction. Because what the NYT editorial board did could definitely be proven to be libelous in a court of law.

(1/2) @nytopinion – commonsense suggestion by a journalist, am talking to attorneys this AM and exploring options. BTW, wonder.. pic.twitter.com/jACvxwUBZH

— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) June 15, 2017

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/875379998726782977
People were less than impressed with the weak effort by the Times.

"What's the least amount of effort we can put into this without putting off our base readership?" https://t.co/DceKTFsui2

— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) June 15, 2017

Palin might as well sue for defamation. At this point, knowing what we know, this is actual malice. https://t.co/S0uAbJkeeQ

— Allahpundit (@allahpundit) June 15, 2017

Or, translated from NYT-speak: "The entire premise of this editorial is based on a lie, and we regret that you noticed." https://t.co/MaM9g2EIYy

— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) June 15, 2017

And no, that doesn’t make the editorial okay. It means they’re slightly less likely to be sued.

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) June 15, 2017

Of course, the damage is definitely done and the smear is out there.

Did it go to print first? Damage done.

Like the 1000 RT vs. 10-20 for the correction. https://t.co/l0EJ1jLUx2

— Lee Doren (@LDoren) June 15, 2017

The NYT correction is designed to still implicate Sarah Palin without making themselves liable. The lawyers wrote it. Remains disgusting.

— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) June 15, 2017

The NYTimes didn't try to correct the record. They tried to prevent a lawsuit while still getting the record wrong and sliming Palin. Gross.

— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) June 15, 2017

Palin has been out of the spotlight since about midway through the 2016 election, when she was campaigning for Trump. Now she’s back, and the New York Times can only blame itself.

"I bet nobody could make Sarah Palin simultaneously relevant and sympathetic in 2017."

NY Times editorial board: "Hold my beer."

— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) June 15, 2017

The chant used to be “run, Sarah, run.” Now it should be “sue, Sarah, sue.”