Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Hillary Clinton Endorses Marriage E… | The Monday Morning News »

Monday, March 18, 2013

Media We Do Not Regret Our Error

Posted by Goldy on Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 8:24 AM

It took weeks of pleading from the victim, a thorough explication of their error from me, and finally, a threatening letter from an attorney, but the Seattle Times has finally issued a correction on that Rob Holland hit piece they're so proud of:

Information in this story, originally published Feb. 9, 2013, was corrected March 16, 2013. The story incorrectly said a consultant’s report said Rob Holland allowed Michael Martin to use his Port credit card to buy camera equipment at Fry’s Electronics. In fact, the report described the Fry’s transaction as “potential unauthorized purchases” that were “unsubstantiated.” The transaction was documented by a $31 invoice with Martin’s name as the customer and Holland’s credit card number.

Huh. Their defensive phrasing shows that they still don't seem to get it. Regardless of how well documented they believe the allegation to be (and as I've explained, it's not well documented at all), "the story incorrectly said a consultant's report said." That was the totality of Martin's complaint: The original article asserted that the report concluded something that it had not concluded. They should have left the correction at that, instead of feebly attempting to back up their own unsupported conclusion.

What's missing from this half-assed correction is a hint of regret. But I guess it's better than nothing.

(And to be clear: We all make errors. Indeed, The Stranger dedicates an entire issue to acknowledging ours. It just shouldn't require a letter from an attorney to get a reporter to correct such a demonstrably inaccurate factual assertion.)

FacebookShare

Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

I shocked the Times even did this much.

You can call them out factually, time after time, and they ignore it. This is particularly true of their editorial board.

Posted by westello on March 18, 2013 at 8:36 AM

@1 They acknowledged it this time because the error was arguably defamatory, and thus brought with it the potential of an expensive legal fight.

Posted by Goldy on March 18, 2013 at 8:42 AM

I know someone who has been working over one year with The Seattle Times to get well-deserved corrections on a hit piece. The reporter had black-and-white facts in her hand that contradicted what her favorite sources alleged, but she and her editor sat on it. Why? The truth would have weakened the sensational nature of her tale so it was left on the cutting room floor.

A correction was finally promised, but still no publication of one three months after the promise.
My pal negotiated in good faith for 4 months on his own and then had to bring in a high-powered attorney, too.

What's next?

The Seattle Times is beyond arrogant. They cannot afford to be.

Posted by Fizgig on March 18, 2013 at 8:44 AM

The Times has never been one to let facts get in the way of using their newsroom to advance the publisher's political agenda. So I share your surprise that they actually felt compelled to offer even this lame, kinda-sorta correction.

Posted by junipero on March 18, 2013 at 8:44 AM

I just looked at the name of the reporter on the Rob Holland piece. Didn't she have trouble with the truth before? I seem to remember something published here a few years ago.

The other reporter who published inaccuracies about my friend also needed corrections on a previous series published a few years ago, as well.

Both were written about here.

Posted by Fizgig on March 18, 2013 at 8:58 AM

@3 Your friend should feel free to send the details my way. I've long considered myself the Seattle Times' volunteer ombudsman.

Posted by Goldy on March 18, 2013 at 9:07 AM

@6 Goldy, he will be in touch.

Posted by Fizgig on March 18, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Dude, everybody, don't read the Seattle Times! Don't click on the links to their stories! Goldy has to do it because it's part of his job, but if you don't have to, why? They're anti-union, anti-poor people, anti-government, anti-transportation, anti-Seattle. They're the Republican organ of Washington State! They endorsed Dino Rossi, McKenna, McGavick, Mallahan, Susan Hutchison, friggin' George W. Bush! They endorsed George W. Bush for his first term!! They even endorsed whatever clown they had running against Maria Cantwell last time around. They did! You don't remember who that was? Exactly! Screw them. Let them go out of business.

Posted by floater on March 18, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Still funny that they're citing an "invoice" which is a piece of paper you can get from a Fry's employee without actually buying anything.

Posted by beef rallard on March 18, 2013 at 9:57 AM

#8 Anti-union? They ARE union. Unlike the Stranger.

Posted by ian on March 18, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Damn. What do you expect from a reich wing teabagger rag like the Seattle times. They'd write about how Rob McKenna is great if they were paid enough. Oh wait they did do that lol.

Posted by S T on March 18, 2013 at 11:34 AM

I blame the anti-SLAPP law in Washington, written by no other than Seattle Times' attorney Bruce EH Johnson, for their ability to lie without consequence.

These laws are important to protect free speech, but they were designed for the little guy. Big media is using it against the little guy.

The Seattle Times is no Brenda Hill, the little guy who inspired Washington's law, but the Times threatens everyone with it, just because they can. Why take responsibility when you have the law in your pocket?

Posted by Fizgig on March 18, 2013 at 2:15 PM

My name is Brenda Hill. I fought hard to have that law put in place. I may have been "a little guy" But I can tell you before my 6 year ordeal I had no idea who the governor was and honestly didn't care. That law has now been followed by 27 states. I was sued for what ended up being 1.2 million and at the time Shirleen Holt was at the Oregonian. I won although I walked away with out a dime. I nocked on over 300 door gathering info at the request of the dept od revenue they collected $351,ooo of the estimated $477,000 owed. Our state sat back and watched me get smashed like a bug by A real Estate Attorney Ave of the stars Beverly Hills. Unlike Erin Brochovitch there was no one to guide me. No pay out at the end. I lost my home and had a "gag order" for 6 years. I may have been "A little guy" housewife with 3 under the age of 3 but I promise you I fought with everything in me for that law to be enacted. Whatever your grievance with the Times. I thank them for the 12 articles they did on my story and the 13 done by the p.i. This "little guy" isn't done till every state has a "Brenda Hill" law of their own!! Brenda Hill/Skylstad 360-771-4884 ps: They didn't write.. They didn't testify before the house and Senate. That takes "little guys" like me willing to put everything on hold to stand up for what is rite!!!

Posted by armymomseattle on April 11, 2013 at 8:39 PM

You blame The antislapp law???? Do you know I lined my 3 kids up on the capital steps after I met the governor?? Do you know why?? Because I didn't need another empty smile and hollow hand shake. You sir have insulted me personally. That law is all I have to show for 6 years of my life. The only reason I came across this blog was because I googled my name. Working on an over due book about that 'antislapp law". My story can be found in Professor George Pring's antislapp book " Getting sued for speaking out" He named a chapter after me. "Brenda Hill

Posted by armymomseattle on April 11, 2013 at 10:08 PM