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.)