March 06, 2013
Apparently, The Post Does Not Actually Regret the Error
Without informing readers in the story or elsewhere, on Monday night The Washington Post deleted its explicit claim that the Dominican prostitute who recanted her allegation against Sen. Robert Menendez had appeared in a video posted to The Daily Caller.
...Readers were not notified of the update anywhere on the article page of Leonnig’s story, and the time stamp was removed to make it impossible to know when the edits went into effect.
The Post published another story at noon on Monday by Leonnig covering TheDC’s refutation of her original piece. In it, Leonnig does not explicitly state her investigation covered the same women interviewed by TheDC.
We're beginning to understand the value of the professional media's rigorous layers of editorial fact checking and control. The use of anonymous sources whose motivation can't be questioned can be quite helpful here, along with the use of subtle hints about connections that don't actually exist. All this indirection is so much harder to fact check:
A Dominican politician related to a top political donor to Sen. Bob Menendez was the driving force promoting new claims from a woman who now says she concocted an allegation that the senator paid her for sex in 2012.
The Miami Herald reported Tuesday that Vinicio Castillo Semán, the cousin of Dr. Salomon Melgen, first released an affidavit Monday from a Dominican escort named Nexis de los Santos Santana, who recanted what she said were accusations she made in a media report.
The Washington Post quickly connected that affidavit to The Daily Caller’s Nov. 1, 2012 report, in which two women said on videotape that they were paid to provide sexual favors to Menendez. But de los Santos’ statement Monday appears to describe a different interview that was never published.
Isn't this the kind of thing that normally shows up in the corrections section of a major newspaper? Oh well, at least the media can comfort themselves that they're far more professional than the blog rabble.
Sheesh. This is twice in the space of a week Monsieur O'Spades has done something that makes us feel positively tingly. If he keeps this up, we'll have to create a new category just for him.
Full marks. CWCID: Patterico.
Posted by Cassandra at March 6, 2013 08:23 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
What's to regret? Except that you noticed, of course.
Posted by: Grim at March 6, 2013 12:23 PM
I've always thought the press were pretty shameless about this sort of thing, but this latest pushing-of-the-envelope approaches performance art :p
Posted by: Cassandra at March 6, 2013 12:46 PM
Well, if it were a performance, you'd be intended to notice. :)
Posted by: Grim at March 6, 2013 12:49 PM
Blog rabble, immoderate drinking and villainous company will be the ruin of me yet, but mostly immoderate drinking.
First! (hiccup) What?
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at March 6, 2013 05:44 PM
Is this a double negative with one, two, or no prostitutes?
Sheesh, they need a new disclaimer, like they have at the end of films about animals.
"The Humane Society for the Protection of Prositutes has ensured that no prostitutes went un-payed in the making of this political thriller."
Posted by: Allen at March 6, 2013 11:04 PM