New York Times slammed for omitting a very critical detail in this article

Conservatives are flagging an article from the New York Times as yet another example of mainstream media bias because of a critical omission they made, and what they did about the mistake.

The article in question was published Monday and related the corruption trial of Senator Menendez of New Jersey, but in the entire report that runs nearly 1,300 words his party affiliation wasn't mentioned once - he's a Democrat.

Menendez is on trial for 12 charges stemming from accusations that he traded political influence for lavish gifts from Florida ophthalmologist Dr. Salomon Melgen. Menendez initially didn't report the gifts included private flights and vacations.

Melgen also donated $700,000 directly and indirectly to Menendez political campaigns.

Conservatives and other media critics slammed the New York Times for the omission of Menendez' party affiliation.

"Nowhere in this long [New York Times] story about Sen. Bob Menendez's corruption trial does it note that he's a Democrat," tweeted David Martosko, the editor for the Daily Mail. "Shame on you, editors.

After the outpouring of criticism against the New York Times, the fact that Menendez is a Democrat was added, but not with the correction noted. This is called "stealth editing" by critics, implying that editors are trying to hide their mistakes rather than being upfront about them.

After Texas Tribune CEO Evan Smith admitted that the omission was "odd," the writer of the New York Times article responded.

Thanks Evan. Not odd, just an oversight on my part after drafts. Adding back now.

— Nick Corasaniti (@NYTnickc) September 5, 2017

"Not odd, just an oversight on my part after drafts," Corasaniti said. "Adding back now."

Menendez was dealt a courtroom defeat recently when his requests were denied by the judge. He was asking that accommodations be made so that he could easily attend votes that might be scheduled in the U.S. Senate at the same time as his trial. As a result, he'll have to choose whether to defend himself in court, or run to the Senate for votes when the schedules clash.