The Washington Post published something yesterday that it shouldn't have. Why? Because it was false, as in fake.
Nevertheless, it's worth highlighting here for the lessons we can learn from it. The piece was headlined:
Sarah Palin's Plan to Reach Millions of Devoutly Religious People Through al Jazeera
It's since been completely rewritten -- because it was false -- but the HTML for the botched item remains "sarah-palins-plan-to-reach-millions-of-devoutly-religious-people-through-al-jazeera."
Oh, it remained that way when I first wrote this piece last night, but now it's been redirected to "sarah-palins-when-politics-and-celebrity-meet/." Interesante.
The entire hook of the piece was proven false, but the item was simply edited and rejiggered and so now the headline is:
Sarah Palin Tries to Stay Relevant
The piece was written by Suzi Parker, "an Arkansas-based political and cultural journalist and author of 'Sex in the South: Unbuckling the Bible Belt.'" It's the same misogynistic claptrap the media have been feeding us regarding Palin for years.
The item begins: "The Sarah Palin Story is a cautionary tale about what can happen when politics and celebrity meet."
I'd argue that this whole embarrassing debacle for the Washington Post is actually a cautionary tale about what can happen when unbridled fear and loathing of Palin meets journalism.
It's been bad for Palin, obviously, but just horrible for journalism. It has destroyed trust with many of its readers. It has turned some journalists and the media outlets that publish them into laughing stocks.
Two thoughts, though. The first is that if you are a media outlet that falls for a fake news item on a satirical website (that in this case published the item about Palin joining al Jazeera) and you run an entire piece about it, the proper correction is not to rewrite the story so that the "point" stays the same but, rather, to simply pull the story. The limp correction (since beefed up slightly) is not sufficient.
Secondly, the item wasn't just false. It fell short of other journalistic standards as well. It included the old trope of quoting a poly sci professor who happens to agree with the journalist. Isn't that also something we need to get past? How hard is it, in this country, to find an academic that will back up your hatred for a particular Republican?
That Suzi Parker wrote a false story is bad enough. And I get -- believe me I get -- how much the media are deranged when it comes to Palin. But certain journalistic standards must be met.
I didn't go to journalism school but I have some advice I'd like to offer in any case: Don't run false stories. When false stories are run and then proven to be false, retract them, don't edit them as if they were "false, but essentially true." Balance out stories with perspectives that are -- wait for it -- different from your own rather than those perspectives that reinforce your prejudices. Am I missing anything?