Washington Post corrects "Dems back down Story"

By
It was disheartening to say the least to read the headline "Dems back down Down" on Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray's piece in Washington Post the day after Bush's veto.

Turns out, what they wrote simply wasn't true. Here's the undated correction that tops the piece today:

Correction to This Article
A May 3 Page One article about negotiations between President Bush and congressional Democrats over a war spending bill said the Democrats offered the first major concession by dropping their demand that the bill it include a deadline to bring troops home from Iraq. While Democrats are no longer pushing a firm date for troop withdrawals, party leaders did not specifically make that concession during a Wednesday meeting with Bush at the White House.

Now, an enormous number of press outlets ran with that story and opinion makers, including Karen Tumulty at TIME, used its content to shape their writing, and even, in Tumulty's case to smack down a reader. Problem was, the piece was factually wrong.

This buried correction can be welcomed in the "too little, too late" department...but the unanswered question for the Washington Post, its editors and its journalists is how did this false story end up a front page story in the first place? And, moreover, as awol notes in the comments below, why is Jonathan Weisman's piece in the today's Washington Post titled:

Democrats' Momentum Stalling

Anyone see a pattern here?

{More from Greg Sargent at the Horses Mouth.}

tags:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Boy is this correction woefully lacking -- which is really bad because corrections, more than anything else, should be as accurate and clear as possible. But this correction buries the retraction in a subordinate clause in a sentence that begins: "While Democrats are no longer pushing a firm date for troop withdrawals." This is really misleading since Democrats "are no longer" pushing any policy at the moment -- they are still caucusing on their response. They are neither pushing for a firm date nor NOT pushing for a firm date.
11:27 AM
Anonymous said…
Also consider this: the headline (which is obviously *the* most important part of an article) read simply "Dems Back Down." This is based entirely on the now-corrected, previously false part of the article. All the sections of the article which *were* accurate wouldn't have justified the headline. And today's Washington Post has a headlined article by the same journalist which says: "Democrats' Momentum is Stalling"!
11:31 AM
Anonymous said…
Very interesting to contrast this piece with this piece in tomorrow's Times entitled "With New Clout, Antiwar Groups Push Democrats". The piece has many interesting points including these:
1. This coalition is talking to democratic Congressional staff in conference calls every morning.
2. They have specifically targeted 57 house districts and Senators in nine states. (Might compare to the list that you put together on this site).
3. I love when the NY Times, after suggesting the way that this coalition is helping lead the dems toward a possible "short leash" strategy merely says, without any attribution, sourcing or specification, "members of the senate appear to be cool to the idea."
12:00 PM
Howling Latina said…
Trumped banner headlines about boatloads of "missions unaccomplished" by Dems leads WaPo's front page on the right hand side above the fold.

A story about soldiers overwhelmingly thinking a little torture and killing is no big deal, below the fold.

I guess that's why their readership is dropping off like flies after a visit from the Orkin man.

A-holes!
12:17 PM
Meteor Blades said…
KO, I just stopped in to thank you, once again, for your excellent foreign policy Diaries at Daily Kos the last few days. I wish more commenters had shown up last night, but you gotta start somewhere. Even though you and I have some sharp disagreements in these matters, I appreciate the quality, depth and seriousness you bring to the discussion. More, please!
1:30 PM
kid oakland said…
Thanks MB

I don't think my coverage is without room for criticism by a long shot, but I truly welcome a chance to discuss and debate and ponder with minds like yours.

Thanks for visiting and your words.

paul
k/o
1:42 PM
Anonymous said…
I would also point out the unnecesary use of the word "specifically" in the Post's correction. Read the correction with this word and then without it: 'specifically' falsely implies that there was some other concessions that were made. It's really a very pernicious thing to include this misleading term in what is, after all, alreay a correction to a false/misleading/inaccurate news story.
6:47 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

a serious moment

By
I was really struck by this photo , which graced the cover of Tuesday's New York Times, showing Ariel Sharon, Condoleeza Rice and James Baker attending a memorial of the late Yitzhak Rabin in Israel. There's something in that picture...in Rice's face, jaw set, eyes hidden behind rockstar sunglasses...and how she is flanked on either side by two men who've played hard-ball power politics for decades: Ariel Sharon, peering beneath his furrowed brow and, always conscious he is being observed, gesturing and thinking...and James Baker, completely hidden behind a permanent dimplomatic mask, an impenetrable sphinx. Of course, that photo sends a powerful message to the world. Rice was in Israel to do serious business . The fact that she brought Baker with her meant that the full weight of the U.S. military-industrial complex... the old guard ...was with her. That trip to Israel was important; and I would guess that U.S. plans and actions regarding Syria were part of that...
Read more

James Watson: racism alive and well in the USA

By
I've spent the last 24 hours reading as the fires ignited by Nobel laureate James Watson have spurred hundreds of racist comments on message boards across the world . The racial views espoused by Watson are not simply pernicious, they are unamerican. The premise that you could walk out your door in the United States and make the claim, with a straight face and in a public place, that you presume that someone is less intelligent than you because of the color of their skin or ethnic background is abhorrent. Watson claims that everyone with Black employees “knows that they are not the equals of Whites” and, somehow, that is supposed to be acceptable? We are supposed to take him seriously…as a scientist? I don’t think so. Watson is about to lose his job and what was left of his reputation. The equality of every citizen, respect for each other including our differences and a sense of the potential inherent in each and every citizen, especially our children, is essential to what it m...
Read more

Ready Return: a good idea versus business as usual...and how you can help

By
Making paying taxes easier for working people and improving government efficiency may not seem to be breathtaking issues in the grand scheme of things; in politics, however, sometimes it's the "small" and "local" issues that stand in for the bigger battles.  In fact, I'd argue that it's often with a program like the one I'm about to tell you about, that a party makes its reputation for standing up for the people and for what's right.   People remember the small things. With Ready Return , California State Democrats have a chance to do the right thing and to help the little guy.  Read below to find out what stands in the way and how you can help. The link you are about to click on below is to a page that lists the feedback of real California citizens regarding a State pilot program called Ready Return: * The program is innovative. * The program would increase California State Tax revenues. * The program would increase government efficiency. * The...
Read more