Wouldn't you kind of want to make sure you had the story right before you publish it? That is, unless you're...say...Jayson Blair (or Andrew Malcolm in this instance).
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/healthcare-reform-violence.html
It seems that--contrary to the initial report in the LA Times--the aggressor was actually a supporter of PBO's health care plan and the victim was an opponent of PBO's health care plan. Isn't that particular detail something rather important NOT to screw up--ESPECIALLY if you're the 4th largest paper in the US by circulation (behind USA Today, WSJ, & NYT)? Now granted, the LA Times did offer an update to the story (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/health-care-activist-bites-off-the-finger-of-a-counter-demonstrator.html) but not before democraticunderground.com jumped on the story too (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8622916) ...but that was before they actually checked the facts as well...DOH!
How did the article about Linda Douglass put it? Facts are stubborn things? YEP...exactly!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment