Do We Expect too Much From Times?

Check out today's NYTimes corrections page:

An article on July 22 about efforts by the White House to shore up support for Judge John G. Roberts Jr. among social-issue conservatives, a full year before he was nominated for the Supreme Court, referred incorrectly to his dissent in a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, involving the arroyo toad. (The error was repeated in articles on July 23 and on Tuesday.) Judge Roberts said the court should rehear the case and consider whether the Interior Department had properly invoked the Endangered Species Act in this circumstance. He did not say the federal government lacked the power to block a California real estate development because it endangered the toad.

And:

An article on July 20 about preparations by advocacy groups to oppose Judge Roberts also referred incorrectly to his dissent. He did not question the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act.

Am I too hard on the Times, or do I just expect too much? These two corrections show that each article presented the exact opposite of the facts in each case about Judge Roberts. These weren't simply misstated dates and times, misspelled names, or confused ethnicities, as is the case with every single other correction.

Which leads me to ask: does the Times purposely print completely false stories and stories with purposely misstated facts with the idea that no one will read the corrections section and therefore believe the original story? Or again, do I just expect too much...?