[Registered]

On Tuesday, we ran a story headlined "White House admits Bush wrong about Iraqi nukes."
__________________________

That is not entirely the case. Now what was the original title of this article? "White House admits Bush lied about Iraqi nukes"

I think this apology by Doug is a tad weak in the sense that Bush has been slimed in a big way and his character questioned. Now we see the story was picked up and printed elsewhere. Not to mention all those lame-brains over at DU and such that will parrot this article for the next decade after swallowing this article hook, line and s(t)inker.

[MJY1288]

You have FR Mail

[Registered]

Hey, where are you on this one you LoOSer!?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Hell has just frozen over. We agree. : )

[Spidey]

I'm with you Registered.

I don't buy this. Would we ever have seen a retraction if not for William? Hell no!

And now we are supposed to believe that you printed crap from this guy for 20 years and you found out in 24 hours that he doesn't exist?

If this isn't the best reason I ever heard not to believe news stories citing "unnamed sources", I don't know what is.

Doug Thompson, you owe the people who read that article and who have been reading on your site a lot more than this weak explanation.

[unspun]

I think this apology by Doug is a tad weak in the sense that Bush has been slimed in a big way and his character questioned. Now we see the story was picked up and printed elsewhere. Not to mention all those lame-brains over at DU and such that will parrot this article for the next decade after swallowing this article hook, line and s(t)inker.

Sometimes this kind of thing can have an effect for the good -- a little like the advance fire that forest rangers make, to prevent the forest fire from spreading -- or like, "Well, I have made one mistake: I thought I was wrong, when I was actually right."

[terilyn]

"On Tuesday, we ran a story headlined "White House admits Bush wrong about Iraqi nukes."
__________________________

That is not entirely the case. Now what was the original title of this article? "White House admits Bush lied about Iraqi nukes"

Exactly right Registered! I knew this sounded weak. I decided to read through the thread before pointing out the discrepancy in the original headline and the headline quoted in the apology.

I applaud Doug's efforts to come clean, but if you're going to come clean, do it. As a journalist your credibility is your livlihood. Using a questionable source is bad. Admitting is good. Trying to cover up just how far you took makes your credibility as questionable as his.

[dead]

Now what was the original title of this article? "White House admits Bush lied about Iraqi nukes"

Bing-friggin'-go!

I just signed on and I can't believe it took that long into the thread until somebody pointed that out.

After he was called on the fact that his original title and opening paragraph were a total lie (even if the rest of his story were true) he changed the title to something far less inflammatory. Now it turns out that his sole source (never took journalism 101?) was bogus so he lies about his original error in his "apology."

He can claim it was just amateurish and pathetic journalism by an obvious hack, but that's just a little CYA action after he got caught.

[nopardons]

IIRC, this is the SECOND time that DT has had to write an apology, to FREEPERs ( and the last time, to President Bush !) because of a wild, erronious, contemptable, and vile column of his. The last apology was even weaker.

Do you remember what I'm talking about ?

[happygrl]

Bush has been slimed in a big way and his character questioned. Now we see the story was picked up and printed elsewhere.

This was a matter of discussion last night on a long distance phone call

Yes, the original story will have legs, while the correction will have to be advocated for and explained again and agian.