"Longstanding Policy"? Really?

Howard Kurtz's media column yesterday (I know, shame on me for not noticing) briefly discusses the New York Times's ripoff of my item on Romenesko. Nothing really new, except for an interesting quotation from the Empty Suit:

Times Public Editor Byron Calame wrote back that the information had been independently obtained and confirmed" but that the paper would consider a correction if it received "the name and phone number of a person who represents Mediacrity." Mediacrity Man, however, wouldn't identify himself. Calame says that the insistence on a name and number is longstanding Times policy and that "if you look at the item, they were already given credit."

Really now. If I was already given credit, why would the paper consider publishing a correction? Also, as David M observed at the time, the Empty Suit, in his haste to shill for management, was confusing Times policy on letters with its policy on rectifying errors. .

Oh well. At least the august Washington Post recognized that the Times piece was "based on my scooplet."

By the way, I kind of wonder what would have been better from the Times perspective: Its arrogant, clumsy handling of the ripoff, and all the resultant publicity in blogland and now the Post, or just doing the right thing and running a correction?