There's been a lot of hubbub around the blogosphere about this photo that was published on the New York Times Web site over the weekend. When first published, the Times referred to the artillery shell in the photo as "the remains of a missile." The blogosphere assailed the Times for its ignorance of things military, because it's obviously not a missile, as anyone who has watched the Military Channel for a couple of hours could tell you.

Today, the image is still up, but it has a new caption attached:

Correction: A picture caption on Saturday with an article about a U.S. airstrike on a village in Pakistan misidentified an unexploded ordinance. It was not the remains of a missile fired at a house.

Well, yes, but the point is the Times should be apologizing for running the photo in the first place. Let me help the Times' editors out: We don't have any aircraft that fire artillery shells. So, when deciding on what picture to run to illustrate a "U.S. airstrike on a village" you shouldn't choose the one that has a stinkin' artillery shell in it.

Let me analogize further: If you're running a story about a monkey escaping his enclosure at the local zoo, you don't run a photo of a ferret with it.