Was the GOP/cornerstone story a 'trial balloon'?

Bob Harris at "This Modern World" has located a correction published by the Times, which attempts to explain the changes made in the story about the rebuilding of the WTC and why they're in such a rush to get the environmental studies done.

A Lexis search on the Times story headlined "Goal Is to Lay Cornerstone at Ground Zero During G.O.P. Convention" brings up not only the article -- with the headline intact -- but the following correction, appended at the end:

CORRECTION: An article yesterday about rebuilding at the World Trade Center site misstated the goal of development officials in setting an aggressive environmental review schedule. It is to start construction next summer, not to lay a cornerstone for the first tower during the Republican National Convention. (State officials had considered that at one point, but they recently decided not to do so, a spokeswoman for Gov. George E. Pataki said yesterday.)

Hmm. So this horrifyingly shameless exploitation of 9/11 actuallly was "considered" at some point, albeit by unnamed "state officials," which conveniently gives the White House deniability.

[Earlier reports on this story, with links to scans and screenshots can be found here and here.]

Personally, I would love to know how the reporter initially got wind that anyone was even considering having the cornerstone laid during the GOP convention, and how it got into the story and past the editors without any kind of supporting quotes, paraphrases or other indications of a source for the claim.

From everything I've seen so far, the reaction to the idea of laying the cornerstone during the GOP convention has been very negative, and I'm sure the strong response is part of why the Times ended up having to alter the story. I have to say, though, it makes me wonder if whomever gave the tip to the reporter did so with the expectation that it be "floated as a trial balloon" in order to get an idea of the public's reaction to it.

It's not at all uncommon for politicians and others to give reporters a "head-up" on something of this nature - an idea that is under consideration, but which may be somewhat controversial. Usually, it's juicy enough for a reporter to want to include it in a story, but is given to them with the understanding that they won't publish anything to identify who the "tip" came from - often in the form of a supposed "leak". Then, if the reaction to the story is good, those who were considering the idea can feel safer to go ahead with the plan.

If the reaction is bad, however, as it was in this case, the person or group who was considering the plan can claim that they never really serious considered such a thing. Then they rail at the "unknown source" who leaked the story and at the paper for publishing unverified clap-trap, demand retractions and otherwise play at being outraged, thus distancing themselves from the idea in general.

In this particular case, state officials did note that they were considering having the cornerstone laid during the GOP convention, but had "recently" decided against it. This doesn't invalidate the idea that the information in the story might have been a trial balloon, however - it tends to reinforce it. While the idea is an outrageous example of how even something like the 9/11 tragedy can be exploited for politica gain, the reaction wasn't so over-the-top negative (especially among conservatives) that the state officials felt a need to distance themselves completely from it. They could acknowledge that it had been considered and dismissed without too much damage to themselves, and with no damage at all to President Bush or the Republican Party at all.

Of course, I'm aghast that they would even think about trying to do something like this - I think that the reconstruction of the World Trade Center should be handled with dignity and with the utmost respect for those who were killed at the site, and I absolutely abhor the use of the September 11th anniversary by the Republicans as part of Bush's re-election campaign. If they had gone ahead and done the cornerstone laying during the GOP convention... I don't know if I have the words for how much that would have bothered me. I'm just glad that there was enough of a negative reaction that, if they hadn't previously decided against doing so, they have now.