The New York Times received and published a letter from Paris mayor Betrand Delanoë that criticized Caroline Kennedy's efforts to win a vacated U.S. Senate seat.

It turns out that the letter was a hoax; Bertrand Delanoë had nothing to do with it.

The New York Times has printed a note of correction and apology.

But the New York Times couldn't resist adding a paragraph of explanation or justification about the hoax. (There seems to be a powerful impulse in such circumstances not to show restraint, but instead to launch into a disculpatory explanation that almost never convinces.)

It seems that the newspaper received the letter by e-mail. To "verify the authenticity" of the letter, the news paper wrote back to the e-mail address that sent the hoax. The New York Times never heard back from this e-mail address. And it never tried to call Delanoë's office.

I don't want to add insult to injury, but the Internet puts the phone number of Delanoë's office within anyone's reach within two minutes, and the cost of a New York-to-Paris phone call is basically free. The newspaper seems to have been the victim of indifference as much as of poor procedures.

Four takeaway points:
  1. Think through procedures. Here, is replying to the sender's e-mail really the best way to confirm submission of a letter to the editor?
  2. Select carefully and motivate the staff that handles verification. Like luggage inspectors, the verification job will involve lots of negatives (no problem) punctuated infrequently by a problem.
  3. Accidents happen. This is especially relevant in the due diligence context. There are always unpleasant surprises after an acquisition.
  4. Keep a sense of humor. It is funny to think that the mayor of Paris would write in to criticize Caroline Kennedy's Senate bid. The hoaxters did clever work.