This is New York Times worthy; 5 retractions by the venerable wire service on one story that savaged GOP Senator Marco Rubio. And some believe there should have been more.

Politico:

Reuters is still kicking itself over an article about Republican golden boy Senator Marco Rubio that yielded five corrections yesterday and may have warranted more.

One senior staffer at Reuters described the episode to me as a "fiasco," another as a "disgrace."

It was so bad, in fact, that the editors and writer involved have been asked not to talk about it. (I reached out to editors David Lindsey and Eric Walsh, but have not heard back.)

The article, by David Adams, had intended to detail why Rubio was an unlikely pick for Vice President: "Rubio may not be as coveted as Gingrich or Romney would have it appear as they press for votes in Florida, where more than 450,000 Hispanics identify themselves as Republicans," Reuters David Adams wrote. "Despite his reputation as a watchdog over federal spending, Rubio, 40, has had significant financial problems that could keep him from passing any vetting process as a potential vice presidential choice, Republican and Democratic strategists say."

But after pressure from the Rubio staff, Reuters was forced to issue corrections that quickly became a larger talking point than the article itself.

Rubio's staff reached out to the editors and the writer early yesterday, prompting Reuters to issue two corrections. But the Daily Caller's Matt Lewis, who spoke with Rubio's staff as well, wrote an item suggesting that there were at least seven errors or exaggerations that warranted mention, and Reuters ultimately issued three more.

John Hinderaker rightly called the Reuters piece"The Worst News Story of 2012." Competition is fierce already, but I'd have to agree with him.