As
others
have pointed out, there are significant differences between
the initial published version and the
currently online version of
Sunday's article about Fitzgerald's indictment of I. Lewis (Scooter)
Libby:
On July 12, the day Cheney and Libby flew together from
Norfolk, Libby talked to Miller and Cooper. That same day, another
administration official who has not been identified publicly returned a
call from Walter Pincus of The Post. He "veered off the precise matter
we were discussing" and said Wilson's trip was a boondoggle set up by
Wilson's wife, Pincus has written in Nieman Reports.
changed from:
On July 12, the day Cheney and Libby flew together from
Norfolk, the
vice president instructed his aide to alert reporters of an attack
launched that morning on Wilson's credibility by Fleischer,
according to a well-placed source.
Libby talked to Miller and Cooper. That same day, another
administration official who has not been identified publicly returned a
call from Walter Pincus of The Post. He "veered off the precise matter
we were discussing" and told him that Wilson's trip was a "boondoggle"
set up by Plame, Pincus has written in Nieman Reports.
with the italicized version indicating which words were removed.
Additional changes to the article dramatically changed its tone, minimizing the involvement of Vice President Cheney.
As readers who depend on the Washington Post, among other sources, for
our news, I feel that we have an obligation to ask their new ombudsman,
Deborah Howell, for an explanation.
You can do this by
sending
an email to Ombudsman Howell:
To: ombudsman@washpost.com
Subject: Changes to Barton Gellman page A1 October 30, 2005 article
Dear Ombudsman Howell,
The initial, published version of "A Leak, Then a Deluge" by Barton
Gellman, on page A1 of the October 30, 2005 Washington Post, is
significantly different from the current online version. In particular,
someone deleted a reference to the involvement of Vice President Cheney
in the leak which led to the indictment of I. Lewis Libby. Additional
changes minimize the potential scope of this scandal.
Because no correction has been issued your paper, I and other readers
feel we would be well served if the Washington Post would let us know
the reasons for these differences between the initial version of the
article and the version now posted online. As the Washington Post's
ombudsman, I look to you to ensure the newspaper's actions are publicly
explained to both online and print readers.
Thank You
---
Please consider supporting epluribusmedia.org
or by calling her at 202-334-7582
UPDATE 4:50pm PST 1 Nov 2005: Deborah Howell is sending out the following response:
I haven't found anything sinister here. They edited the story between editions and are continuing to report on this.
Update 2 10:30am PST 14 Nov 2005: As
standingup pointed out at ePluribus Media's scoop site, Deborah Howell has
mentioned this email effort in her column:
A Barton Gellman story on Oct. 30 about the Valerie Plame leak case prompted a lot of mail asking why The Post, between editions, dropped a reference to Vice President Cheney, whose chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, resigned after being indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The reference that was dropped said that Cheney instructed an aide to alert reporters of an attack launched that morning on Wilson's credibility by Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary.
I looked into this and found that the motive had to do with more reporting. National Editor Mike Abramowitz said: "Bart's piece gathered and synthesized a lot of information on deadline, with contributions from many Post reporters. Adding, cutting and moving that information around is a normal part of the editing process. This time it was more visible than usual because it happened late and between editions. We decided . . . that it warranted more time and space than we had available that night. Readers should stay tuned."