The Best of Politico's Sneaky Edits

Article: " A Conservative Dismisses Right-Wing Black Panther 'Fantasies' "
First Published: July 16, 5:48 p.m.

The original version of this article about Abigail Thernstrom, vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, included this paragraph:

The criticism has focused attention not just on Thernstrom, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, but on the partisan nature of the Civil Rights Commission, and on a story that, like the controversy over the anti-poverty group ACORN, has raged almost completely outside the mainstream media.

Aside from a few minor style changes, the paragraph remained unaltered for more than six hours, until about 12:13 a.m. At that point, Politico corrected Thernstrom's think-tank affiliation from the Manhattan Institute—she was a senior fellow there from 1993 to 2009—to the American Enterprise Institute:

The criticism has focused attention not just on Thernstrom, a a [sic] scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, but on the partisan nature of the Civil Rights Commission and on a story that, like the controversy over the anti-poverty group ACORN, has raged almost completely outside the mainstream media.

Politico didn't append a correction notice or add an updated timestamp to indicate the article had been altered. The error was an easy one to make: Thernstrom's outdated Manhattan Institute profile was the first result on a recent Google search for "Abigail Thernstrom," and as of July 19, Wikipedia still lists her as a Manhattan Institute scholar. But the correct information is easily accessible, too: in Thernstrom's official bio at the USCCR as well as the Manhattan Institute's and American Enterprise Institute's current lists of scholars.

After Slate contacted Politico with its list of unacknowledged corrections, Politico added this notice:

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified the think tank with which Abigail Thernstrom is now affiliated. She is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. 

Article: " How Old Is Too Old?"
First Published: July 15, 4:32 a.m.

For seven hours after first publishing this article about old folks in the House and Senate, Politico added a few months to Florida Rep. Bill Young's age when tallying Congress' octogenarians:

There are nine lawmakers who will be 80 or older when they run for reelection this fall. The current 80-and-up club includes Rangel, Hall, 85-year-old Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Dingell and Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.), who was rumored to be retiring and also is 80.

At 11:33 a.m., Politico amended the sentence to read:

The current 80-and-up club includes Rangel, Hall, 85-year-old Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Dingell and Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.), who was rumored to be retiring and also will be 80 in December.

Politico posted neither a correction notice nor an updated timestamp.

After Slate contacted Politico with its list of unacknowledged corrections, Politico added this notice:

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly identified Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.) as an octogenarian.

Article: " West Rakes in Cash"
First Published: July 9, 3:40 p.m.

About an hour after first posting this article (original title: "Bombastic West Rakes In Cash"), Politico corrected this sentence about Rep. Ron Klein's campaign chest:

Klein hasn't released his second-quarter numbers yet, but he had $1.1 million in the bank at the end of March.

To read:

Klein hasn't released his second-quarter numbers yet, but he had $2.6 million in the bank at the end of March.

After Slate contacted Politico with its list of unacknowledged corrections, Politico added this notice:*

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported Rep. Ron Klein's (D-Fla.) cash-on-hand total at the end of March. Klein had $2.6 million, not $1.1 million.

* Correction, July 20, 2010: A previous version of this article incorrectly reported that Politico hadn't yet acknowledged its correction.

Article: " Lawson Brings Up Boyd's Divorce"
First Published: July 8, 1:55 p.m.

Over two hours after publishing this article about one of Florida's House races, Politico amended the following paragraph to reflect that Democratic incumbent Allen Boyd has run four, not two, TV ads against his primary opponent, Al Lawson:

Boyd has already spent more than $1 million in his effort to beat back Lawson ahead of the Aug. 24 primary and has run two television ads blasting his primary opponent. A recent spot from the Boyd campaign slammed Lawson for his record on jobs.

After Slate contacted Politico with its list of unacknowledged corrections, Politico added this notice:*

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the number of ads Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) has run targeting his primary opponent, Al Lawson. Boyd has run four ads, not two.

* Correction, July 20, 2010: A previous version of this article incorrectly reported that Politico hadn't yet acknowledged its correction.

Article: " President Obama To Bypass Senate on Berwick"
First Published: July 6, 9:32 p.m.

In the original version of this article, Politico whiffed on the expiration date of Donald Berwick's appointment as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Sometime shortly after 11 o'clock the next morning, Politico altered the relevant sentence:

The appointment is good until the end of the 111th Congress in January, after which Berwick would have to be renominated to continue in the job and would likely face even greater opposition if the GOP makes expected gains in the Senate.

To read:

The appointment is good until the end of the next session of Congress, in late 2011, after which Berwick would have to be renominated to continue in the job and would likely face even greater opposition if the GOP makes expected gains in the Senate.

After Slate contacted Politico with its list of unacknowledged corrections, Politico added this notice:*

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the expiration date of Berwick's appointment.

* Correction, July 20, 2010: A previous version of this article incorrectly reported that Politico hadn't yet acknowledged its correction.

Article: " U.S., Russia Pull Trigger on 'Spy Swap' "
First Published: July 8, 7:17 PM

The following paragraph appears toward the end of the original version of this article about the U.S.-Russia spy swap:

Russia's Kommersant newspaper reported that two other people on Russia's swap list are Alexandar Sypachev, a Russian intelligence colonel sentenced in 2002 to eight years in prison for spying for the United States, and Alexander Zaporozhsky, a former Russian Foreign Intelligence Service official, who was arrested in 2001 after being lured back to Russia from the United States.

Within three hours of publishing the article, Politico entirely reworked the paragraph:

The other two individuals to be released by Russia are Alexander Zaporozhsky, a former Russian Foreign Intelligence Service official arrested in 2001 after being lured back to Russia from the United States, and Gennadi Vasilenko, a former K.G.B. officer arrested in 1998 for contacts with the CIA, reports citing the Kremlin said.

There's no mention of Sypachev anywhere in the updated article. Or any identification of the reports citing the Kremlin or the newspaper Kommersant.

Article: " Don't Let Midterms Take Us Back"
First Published: July 6, circa 6:30 a.m.

One might think author bios, so short and timeless, would be error-free. At the bottom of Mark Penn's July 8 op-ed, Politico wrote:

Mark Penn, worldwide chief executive officer at Burson-Marsteller and president of Penn Schoen Berland, served as a pollster to President Barack Obama and senior adviser to President Bill Clinton.

Penn hasn't polled for President Obama, but he did poll for Obama's rival for the presidency, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton. Within three hours of publishing the gaffe, Politico corrected the bio without acknowledging the change:

Mark Penn, worldwide chief executive officer at Burson-Marsteller and president of Penn Schoen Berland, served as a pollster and senior adviser to President Bill Clinton.

More oddness: The timestamp on the article reads "7/6/10 11:48 AM EDT," without any indication the article was updated, yet we picked up a copy around 6:30 that morning.

After Slate contacted Politico with its list of unacknowledged corrections, Politico added this notice:

Correction: An earlier version of this tagline incorrectly identified the author as a pollster to President Barack Obama.

Politico also changed the timestamp to read, "7/19/10 6:08 PM EDT"—a date more than 13 days after the op-ed was originally published.

Article: " Gore Story Goes Mainstream"
First published: July 2, 12:48 p.m.

Another sentence down the memory hole, this one reminiscent of the sentence comparing freelancers to beat-reporters that Politico deleted from the McChrystal article. The original version of this story, about massage therapist Molly Hagerty's claim that Al Gore sexually harassed her in 2006, included the following paragraph:

The [Washington] Post's story brought one interesting new fact to light: Hagerty has a history of making accusations of unwanted sexual advances. In 1998, according to court records, she sought a restraining order against an ex-boyfriend who she said had assaulted her in a park two years earlier and had since spoken to her "in a menacing tone." The request was denied.

As we note in the article accompanying this feed, it's a stretch to call Hagerty's previous accusations a "history." Politico seems to have recognized this. At some point between 11:00 a.m. on July 3 and 8:29 a.m. on July 4—that's 22 to 43 hours after the most recent edit—Politico excised the over-reaching clause and sewed the paragraph back together, leaving no trace of the operation:

The Post's story brought one interesting new fact to light: In 1998, according to court records, she sought a restraining order against an ex-boyfriend who she said had assaulted her in a park two years earlier and had since spoken to her "in a menacing tone." The request was denied.

Sometime between midday of July 5 and midday of July 6, Politico acknowledged a correction—to a different part of the article:

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Howard Kurtz's report on the masseuse's allegation was the Washington Post's first report on the subject.

But no mention of the deleted sentence.

After Slate contacted Politico with its list of unacknowledged corrections, Politico added this notice:

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly inferred from a Washington Post story that Hagerty has made more accusations of unwanted sexual advances than she has. She has sought a restraining order against her former boyfriend, who she said had assaulted her, but the nature of that assault was not described in the Post story.

Article: " Private-Sector Job Growth Falters"
First Published: July 2, 8:29 a.m.

For nearly three hours after Politico first published this article, the final figure in the following paragraph read "3.5 billion jobs" (emphasis ours):

The numbers spell significant trouble for Obama and the Democrats heading toward the November midterms, as they have increasingly argued that the $787 billion stimulus package put a solid floor under the economy and is on its way toward creating or saving 3.5 million jobs.

At 11:28 a.m., someone corrected the error but left no notice of the change, which otherwise would have employed 51 percent of the world's population.

After Slate contacted Politico with its list of unacknowledged corrections, Politico added this notice:*

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly reported the number of jobs that President Obama and Democrats have argued that the stimulus package will create or save. It is 3.5 million.

* Correction, July 20, 2010: A previous version of this article incorrectly reported that Politico hadn't yet acknowledged its correction.

Article: " House Adds $23B to War Funding Bill"
First Published: July 1, circa 11:30 p.m.

Within the first hour after publishing this article, Politico corrected "$87 billion" to "$82 billion" in the following sentence:

To minimize the deficit impact, an equal sum of appropriations cuts and new legislative savings are incorporated, but the end product is a bill still approaching $87 billion—less than half of which is directly related to Afghanistan or its neighbor Pakistan.

As of July 18, the article's timestamp read "7/2/10 1:32 AM EDT," but we picked up copy before midnight of that evening. (That version was about half the length of the 1:32 a.m. version, but that first half was identical—aside from the $5 million discrepancy.)

After Slate contacted Politico with its list of unacknowledged corrections, Politico added this notice:

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly identified the years Byrd gave up the majority leader position and Appropriations Committee chairmanship.

Politico also adjusted the main timestamp to "7/1/10 11:30 PM EDT".
 
Article: " Erick Erickson: GOP Leaders Betraying Repeal"
First Published: July 1, 1:10 p.m.

Politico took a few attempts at summarizing Rep. Steve King's and Rep. Wally Herger's symbolic proposals to repeal health care reform. The first attempt, citing RedState editor Erick Erickson:

Erickson points out that there is a split among House Republicans over the measures—King's would eliminate the law while Herger's would replace portions of it—and endorsing both of them effectively solidifies that division, ensuring that the vote won't come up. [Emphasis ours.]

A couple of hours later, at 2:53 p.m., Politico amended the paragraph to read:

Erickson points out that there is a split among House Republicans over the measures—King's would repeal the law as passed by the Senate before the reconciliation process while Herger's would repeal what passed in the Senate and replace portions of the bill included in reconciliation—and endorsing both of them effectively solidifies that division, ensuring that the vote won't come up. [emphasis ours]

And another four hours later, at 6:59 p.m.:

Erickson points out that there is a split among House Republicans over the measures—King's would repeal the law as passed by the Senate before the reconciliation process while Herger's would repeal the whole bill while replacing some portions with GOP alternatives—and endorsing both of them effectively solidifies that division, ensuring that the vote won't come up. [Emphasis ours.]

Again, no notice of correction and no timestamp indicating the article had been updated.

Article: " The Senate's Memory Keeper"
First Published: June 28, 6:49 p.m.

Probably the most baffling series of unacknowledged corrections visited an appreciation of the late Sen. Robert Byrd, an article Politico could have started preparing before it even launched. The initial version, published at 6:49 p.m. on June 28, included this account of Byrd's gradual decline in legislative power:

But first in 1986, Byrd surrendered the Majority Leadership, and twelve years later, the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee—for the good of the Senate and his party.

The next morning, at 6:13, Politico updated this sentence, extending his chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee for another decade:

But in 1986, Byrd surrendered the majority leadership, and 22 years later, the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee—for the good of the Senate and his party.

In fact, Byrd stepped down as chairman of the Appropriations Committee in 2008, not 1998. But wait! At 7:51 a.m., the sentence changed again:

But at the end of 1988, Byrd surrendered the majority leadership, and 10 years later, the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee—for the good of the Senate and his party.

Almost there! But Politico again miscalculated the year Byrd surrendered his Appropriations Committee chairmanship. At 9:24 a.m., the sentence made one more attempt at scaling Mount Accurate:

But at the end of 1988, Byrd surrendered the majority leadership, and 20 years later, the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee—for the good of the Senate and his party.

Actually, Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981 to 1987, so Byrd had surrendered the majority leadership for those years, too—a fact the article doesn't acknowledge until 10 paragraphs later. At least we know that, whatever he did, it was always for the good of the Senate and his party.

After Slate contacted Politico with its list of unacknowledged corrections, Politico added this notice:

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly identified the years Byrd gave up the majority leader position and Appropriations Committee chairmanship.