There are already three corrections appended to a New York Times news article about how Fox News and Rupert Murdoch reacted to the Paris terrorist attacks. so I hesitate to pile on. But this sentence — "Another prominent author, Matt Haig, wrote on his Twitter account: 'On behalf of white people I'd like to apologize for Rupert Murdoch.'"— is an example of an editing lapse at the time that I find grating enough to mention. If someone is really a prominent author, shouldn't the Times respect the cultural literacy of its readers enough not to find it necessary to remind them of that fact?
In reality, when you see the Times throwing around terms like "eminent" or "prominent" or "famous" or "authoritative," it's usually a subtle signal that the person about to be quoted isn't actually any of those things, but is in agreement with the Times on some issue, and so therefore qualifies for the privilege of being puffed up by the Times with some sort of inflationary adjective.