So much for credibility ... nice work USA Today

So, USA Today writes that big expose a few months back on how all the phone companies are giving our records to W's White House to spy on us.

Then it comes out that the main reporter, Leslie Cauley, has been a donor for a Democrat. Now, USA Today is backing down on the BASIC PREMISE of the entire story. But instead of standing up tall and admitting their shortcomings, this is the story and "note to the readers" that they run.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-30-nsa_x.htm

They could have just saved some space and said, "Hey, we were wrong. But there's still some bad stuff going on. And by the way, other papers reported stuff like this too. So leave us alone."

Everybody's going to make mistakes. Being misled by sources is a time-honored tradition in D.C. But you have to fall on your sword when it blows up ... it's the only way to not appear that you have an agenda.

 

Why the hell would any journalist donate to one political party or another? How stupid can you get?

 

Good question.

Another one is how you let that same reporter -- whose credibility has been questioned because of that contribution and who was apparently wrong on one of the year's biggest stories -- then turn around and work on the follow-up clarification story?

Boggles the mind.

 

Jeeeeezzzzz. Thanks, Gannett, for helping out the industry.

 

Do you expect anything less from the McPaper?

 

Ask Dan Rather.

 

Great...this will give ammo to the knuckle-draggers who are biased against the press. F'n Gannett.

 

Not much from the Poynterbots so far.

 

Can we expect an update from Wenalway?

 

But of course.

 

FWIW, USA Today is to Gannett as Vatican City is to Italy.

Kind of a nation unto itself.

 

I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but Roscoe Nance's Mock Draft for USA Today didn't include Rudy Gay.