Tuesday, April 06, 2004
A correction? Well, it doesn't look like a correction. It doesn't really sound like a correction, but it may be something correctionish.
Today's Paul Krugman column has the following note at the bottom.
A Yawngate update: CNN called me to insist that despite what it first said, the administration really, truly wasn't responsible for the network's claim that David Letterman's embarrassing video of a Bush speech was a fake. I still don't understand why the network didn't deny White House involvement until it retracted the charge. But the main point of Friday's column was to highlight the way CNN facilitated crude administration smears of Richard Clarke.
So, Krugman merely buried the lede. He didn't really have enough solid information to write a whole 700 words about CNN and the Bush administration's secret pact to discredit disgruntled former employee and proven liar Richard Clarke, so he wasted nearly half of his column on a false libel.
If you flashback to Krugman's last column, you find that CNN had erroneously stated that the tired, fidgeting kid in question had been edited into the video and later that he was at the rally, but not standing where he appeared in the video. Krugman appears to be confused at why "the network didn't deny White House involvement until it retracted the charge."
This makes no sense. Why is CNN's screw-up any less believable because they retracted the whole thing at once and not the part about the White House involvement first?
If this is a Krugman correction, then who is the one who is really able to smear without fear?