Sign up for The Media Today, CJRâs daily newsletter.
It all started with a really bad idea, a bottle of beer, and a still of our Secretary of State. And it ended with The Washington Post pulling down a video featuring two of its star staffers.
In between, the newspaper drew wide fire (from CJR and others) for Dana Milbankâs suggestion, in an attempt at humor, that Hillary Clinton drink âMad Bitchâ beerâa reportedly lovely Belgian tripel. The gag-inducing gag came in the course of an episode of Mouthpiece Theater, the Postâs tongue-in-cheek Web video series featuring Milbank and Chris Cillizzaâthink smoking jackets, a fireplace, and a backdrop of fake booksâmatching beer names with public figures in anticipation of President Obama’s much-hyped beer summit.
The Post decided to take the video down from its Web site. Reporters asking about the incident, including CJRâs Greg Marx, were sent a statement conceding that an undescribed âsection of the video ⌠went too far.â
But what did the Post do to alert viewers of the series, readers of their paper, or visitors to their site that theyâd goofed? Nothingâno editors note, no apology, no explanation. (Update 08/05/09: The Post has since added a line of explanation and apology.)
It used to be that a newspaper or magazineâs mistakesâand the corrections and apologies they begatâwould live on forever in archives and paper morgues.
But now that digital technology allows news outlets to wipe the bits cleanâat least from their own siteâwhat obligation is there to preserve the faulty material for the record, or even to note the errors?
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.