The New York Times has yet again published a correction that reveals a basic Jewish illiteracy among its editors.

A recent Sunday Times included this print correction: “An article last Sunday about the billionaire Ronald O. Perelman referred imprecisely to a get. It is a written document obtained from a Jewish rabbinical court that grants permission to divorce; it is not a religious tradition by which men leave their wives without leaving the faith.”

The Perelman article is a story in itself, as at this writing it has three separate corrections appended, covering four factual errors. But the get one is a reminder of just how clumsy the Times is when dealing with matters of Jewish religious law, ritual, or learning.

Previous Times corrections of this genre have included having “incorrectly implied that beef tenderloin is kosher and appropriate for Passover”; misstated the number of pages in the Talmud; “misstated the length of the Jewish period of mourning for a spouse,” and “misidentified the strain of Judaism that is holding more influence in the current Israeli government.” Also, having “misstated how the Hebrew Bible — the Tanakh — correlates with the Christian Old Testament.”

No one expects Times news editors to be rabbinic scholars or Jewish trivia contest winners. What is reasonable, though, is for them to be self-aware about their lack of this knowledge. That humility might lead them to ask an expert. Sadly, although the paper has lately been bragging that it has 1,700 journalists on staff, knowledgeable religious Jews among them are few and far between — almost as rare as Times editors with the humility to ask for help on the topic.

In other subject areas, the Times has aspired to do better. In a recent report on diversity and inclusion, the New York Times Company wrote, “The aim is to create an inclusive culture that emphasizes teamwork and organically incorporates diverse perspectives.”

The report went on:

This work should ultimately render the informal practice that some now call a “sensitivity read” obsolete. These requests for additional feedback come with good intentions — for example, to determine if story framing and language hold up to our news standards and do not play into tired stereotypes — but often arrive unexpectedly, too late to remedy deep journalistic issues. The phrase itself conveys a timidness that’s out of keeping with coverage of the world without fear or favor. We will continue to encourage collaboration across the newsroom; another set of eyes, particularly from a different perspective, immeasurably improves our coverage. But more intentional and organic inclusion of people of color throughout the process of assigning, reporting and editing our stories should eventually curtail the need to call in journalists at the last minute to catch embarrassing gaps. For now, we will be adopting a system to enable departments to solicit added layers of editing expertise — on race or any other subject matter — in a structured way.

If there was a “structured way” to solicit an added layer of Jewish editing expertise on the Perelman story, it doesn’t seem to have helped. Instead, the get gaffe is just the latest in a series of errors bolstering the sense of Jewish readers that when it comes to Judaism, the Times can’t really be bothered with getting things right the first time around.

Ira Stoll was managing editor of the Forward and North American editor of the Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.