Readers of the New York Times opened their newspapers last Tuesday to find a big surprise: a 23-paragraph editors' note–half defense, half mea culpa–deconstructing the paper's coverage of the case of Wen Ho Lee, the Los Alamos scientist once suspected of spying for China. Along with a critique on the editorial page later in the week, it was the culmination of a rocky year for the newspaper of record. Other substantial corrections and the increasing volume of criticism from within and without the paper have led some to ask, just what is happening at the Times?

The answer, it seems, has as much to do with the times as with the Times: In a world of 24/7 cable stations and a staggering array of Internet news sources in addition to traditional newspapers and magazines, the paper is striving for more aggressive investigative reporting and livelier writing. In many cases it has paid off, in buzz, scoops–and Pulitzers. But some Times watchers worry that it has also led to corner cutting. "For better or for worse, the Times has shed some of the qualities that gave it its authority in the first place," wrote National Journal media critic William Powers.

The Lee saga makes a good case in point. On March 6, 1999, the Times reported that China had advanced its nuclear weapons development using secrets stolen from an American government lab. The story didn't name Lee, but it said the main suspect was a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. It also quoted a CIA spy catcher saying the case was "going to be just as bad as the Rosenbergs." Two days later, Lee, a 60-year-old Taiwanese-American based at Los Alamos, was fired. He spent 278 days in solitary confinement, all the while denying he provided secrets to China. The government never charged Lee with espionage–though serious questions remain about Lee's downloading of weapons data–and late last month, the government dropped all but one of the 59 counts against him. The White House charged that the Times's aggressive coverage had set off a media feeding frenzy.

In last week's editors' note, the Times said it had re-examined its coverage and found much to be proud of. But the paper also acknowledged "flaws" in its initial story and said it could have done more to give Lee "the full benefit of the doubt." It also noted an excess of credulity in government sources: "In place of a tone of journalistic detachment from our sources, we occasionally used language that adopted the sense of alarm . . . voiced to us by investigators, members of Congress and administration officials. . . ."

Bum year? The editors' note follows other corrections this year. A front-page story in late August asserting a loss of support for the Boy Scouts after the Supreme Court decision allowing them to exclude gay scout leaders was riddled with errors. A front-page science piece presenting new evidence of melting ice at the North Pole due to global warming turned out to be dead wrong. "No one knows if it's a bum year or a worrisome trend," says one Times reporter. Another laments: "This is certainly not good for us. There have been a lot of old-timers walking around shaking their heads, saying they've been here 16 years, 20 years and never seen anything like this." In defense, Times spokeswoman Kathy Park says: "We have always strived for the highest standards in journalism and will continue to do so. . . . Some of the current concerns arise from the very fact of our forthrightness in calling ourselves to account."

Normally, a newspaper's blunders wouldn't attract so much attention. But lapses by the Times take on added significance because the newspaper is the national agenda setter. "There's no question it's been a rough year for the Times," says Susan Tifft, coauthor of The Trust: The Private and Powerful Family Behind The New York Times. ". . . It's like an Olympic athlete who has a bad series of heats....They're still a world-class contender."

Meanwhile, in the newsroom, the editors' note provoked intense debate. It was unnecessary, even unseemly, said some; others thought it was too little, too late. Executive Editor Joseph Lelyveld and Managing Editor Bill Keller met with staffers in edgy, serious sessions, reaffirming the paper's commitment to aggressive reporting. Speaking of the Lee coverage, Lelyveld told staffers: "The person I blame more than anyone else is myself." In the end, he said, the institution must stay "accountable" to its readers.

Which is a challenge, no doubt. "In the world of the Internet," notes Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, "what people are really going to need in the 21st century is information about what is true and reliable."