ePluribus Media Community || Can there be an explanation for WAPO

Can there be an explanation for WAPO

by luaptifer

Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 04:21:45 PM EST

revision of their own telling of the story?

[editor's note, by wanderindiana] promoted from the Commentaries.

From the current version of the Gellman article in today's Washington Post ...

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.

From the original version now saved in the Nexis database...

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.

More soon.
-- Josh Marshall

I once asked rhetorically, whether it could be clear against whom any modern-day revolution would present, should such an action ever become necessary.

With friends like the press, who needs dictators?

commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!

Can there be an explanation for WAPO | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 hidden)

Other edits? (none / 0) (#1)

According to the two versions listed in Nexis, there were 52 words cut from the original piece. The passage above contains 25. I wonder where the other 27 words were cut?

That, and the headline of the piece was changed, subtly, from

A Leak, Then a Cascade; Did a Bush loyalist overstep the bounds in protecting the administration's case for war in Iraq and obstruct an investigation?

A Leak, Then a Deluge; Did a Bush loyalist, trying to protect the case for war in Iraq, obstruct an investigation into who blew the cover of a covert CIA operative?

I've got copies of both versions; I'm going to compare them for the other 27 words that were cut.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 05:24:31 PM EST

Another significant omission (none / 0) (#2)

The second version of the article also omitted the italicized portion of the following text:

On June 12, the same day Cheney and Libby had their conversation about Wilson aboard Air Force Two, The Post published a story challenging the uranium claims. Wilson has since said he was among the sources for that story.

There are a host of edits in the entire story. I saved the two versions and used Microsoft Word's Compare Documents feature to track the changes.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 05:36:57 PM EST

One more (none / 0) (#3)

Again, the italicized text was omitted from the second version of Gellman's article:

It may never be clear what drove Libby, the most cautious of Washington insiders, to take such risks in leaking classified information, ostensibly to protect the administration.

The original version appears to state Libby leaked classified information; the rewrite leaves that statement out.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 05:42:46 PM EST

Another passage with changes (none / 0) (#4)

Omissions are in italics; additions are in bold.

The next day, Libby lunched with Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, according to the indictment. He told Fleischer that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and noted that the information was not widely known. The same day, Powell's the State Department requested and received sent Powell a classified memorandum identifying Plame as Wilson's wife and describing her role in recommending him written a month earlier identifying Wilson's wife as a CIA employee and saying it was believed she recommended Wilson for the Niger mission. Powell was traveling with Bush to Africa, and sources said the memorandum was widely circulated among officials with appropriate clearances aboard Air Force One.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 06:36:57 PM EST

Ashcroft passage with changes (none / 0) (#5)

Again, italics for omissions; bold for additions:

Through the fall and winter, officials said, Ashcroft received periodic briefings on the case. In the last week of December, about a month after Libby's second interview with the FBI, then-Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey had repeated multiple discussions with Ashcroft about whether it was time for the attorney general to give up supervision of the probe, a change, Comey has said.
Comey told reporters on Dec. 30 that an "accumulation of facts" in the investigation had brought about Ashcroft's recusal. Details of their conversations have not been made public, and it is not known who initiated their conversations the previous week. them.
"The issue surrounding the attorney general's recusal is not one of actual conflict of interest," Comey said, but "one of appearance."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 06:40:49 PM EST

One more (none / 0) (#6)

Italics, omissions; bold, additions:

Still to be determined is who first leaked Plame's name to syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak -- the original act that led to Fitzgerald's investigation --whether a crime was committed and the roles of many other administration officials, including Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 06:45:59 PM EST

strange (none / 0) (#7)

who ordered the edits?

by susie dow on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 07:18:29 PM EST

WI, do you have the revised edition in a single (none / 0) (#8)

document? it'd be fascinating to see just how the ultimate meaning of the overall story may have changed with the entire set of editions in place.

by luaptifer on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 07:26:14 PM EST

I'll send it to you. (none / 0) (#9)

Check your mail, luap.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 07:27:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

gracias! interesting to see the full context (none / 0) (#10)

my review of the changes doesn't pick up much significant shift in meaning than relates to that larger block of text. with a substantial review of it under your belt, do you find meaningful change as the sum effect of the edits?

by luaptifer on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 08:30:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tone and assertions (none / 0) (#11)

I find that the removal of some facts and assertions from the original article change the overall tone of the piece.

What was originally a rather damning article becomes more of a tip-toe around the hard stuff to give the Bush administration a break.

My $0.02, FWIW.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 09:46:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

your 0.02 was worth much more than was my (none / 0) (#12)

bankrupt 0.0002 as my perspective came after a scan rather than having worked with the whole for a couple of hours as you'd done.

if i was to bank on this bet, my money's on you!

by luaptifer on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 10:07:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WI (none / 0) (#13)

A table with the original and the revision side by side would surface the intent of the edits overall. Are the edits you note here all of 'em??

One seems justifiable, but the rest do seem to skew to providing cover for the administration.

Thanks for this analysis.

by Cho on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 10:57:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not nearly all (none / 0) (#14)

There were many one word changes here and there with a shift of case or tense in surrounding words to reflect the changes. To post all the edits in a table would be horribly time consuming.

As I emailed a Word document I constructed that has all the revisions to luaptifer, I'd offer the same to you or any other interested party for examination. Just let me know if you're interested.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 11:09:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stupid Question.............. (none / 0) (#15)

Does the WaPo have different editions.... You were looking at the on-line edition but the printed hard copy... I wonder how many editions they print... Do they have a hard copy weekend edition that is printed Friday Nite? And then print hard copy on Sunday nite for the week?

by avahome on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 11:59:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Both say "Final Edition" (none / 0) (#16)

Both versions that I found on Nexis say "Final Edition"; they have the same page position cited and no apparent edition differences.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:26:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

: avahome's 'stupid question' is even more prescient (none / 0) (#22)

i think.
were there differences in dates of each or all done within a fairly short time on the same day, just the one sometime later than the other? txj brings up the point that changes that reflect evolution of the known facts could explain some of the differences but i'd think on a hot story, if some or most of these facts were out there, the subtle shifts you've documented go back to motivations that don't come from an honest attempt to reflect a story on the move.

by luaptifer on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 10:40:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

CJR picks up on this (none / 0) (#17)

There's a CJR Daily posting calling for the Washington Post ombudsman to provide an explanation of these changes.

by silence on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:34:19 PM EST

An extraordinary find (none / 0) (#18)

And one that should be vigorously questioned -- changing the story without notifying the readers is inexcusable. But I would offer the following alternate theory for the changes.

The original story uses an unnamed administration official to specifically refer to Cheney and Fleischer. But now, the Libby's indictment is public record and a legal document, and the indictment very carefully differentiates between "Libby, Cheney and others" flying to Norfolk, and Libby "discussing with other officials" on the return flight about how to respond to Wilson.

One argument goes that these are the facts now in evidence, the result of two years of research versus one unnamed source. BUT, it's well worth asking the WaPo what motivated them to change the story without telling anyone.
They said, "kick all the illegal aliens out, then build a super-fence so they can't get back in." And I went, "Um, who's gonna build it?" --Carlos Mencia
by txj on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:03:14 PM EST

Lets ask the ombudsman (none / 0) (#19)

How about we ask the ombudsman for an answer; that's her job, and seems to be the route most likely to produce some sort of explanation, even if nefarious ones are likely to be swept under the rug, rather than produced in public.

by silence on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:30:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: (Comment Deleted) (none / 0) (#20)

This comment has been deleted by wanderindiana

They said, "kick all the illegal aliens out, then build a super-fence so they can't get back in." And I went, "Um, who's gonna build it?" --Carlos Mencia
by txj on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 06:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]