Washington Post Stealth-Edits Deception in Romney Hit Piece;
Now Says They'll Add Explanation for Their Deception

This should be a hoot.

The Washington Post originally claimed:

“I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and has long been bothered by the Lauber incident.

Emphasis added. But that's not true. Stu White has not "long been bothered" by the incident -- he was not present for it at the time, and in fact did not even hear of it until this year -- several weeks ago --when the Washington Post asked him about it.

So this is an intentional misrepresentation.

When called out on this, the Washington Post stealth-edited, without acknowledging the correction, so the piece now reads:

“I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and said he has been “disturbed” by the Lauber incident since hearing about it several weeks ago, before being contacted by The Washington Post.

So now the Washington Post says he's been disturbed about it for a matter of weeks. They are claiming that he did hear about the story, before the Washington Post contacted him; but this is contradicted by the man himself.

White, in an interview with ABC News, said that he is “still debating” whether he will help the campaign, remarking, “It’s been a long time since we’ve been pals.” While the Post reports White as having “long been bothered” by the haircutting incident,” he told ABC News he was not present for the prank, in which Romney is said to have forcefully cut a student’s long hair and was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post.

Now let's take a minute to examine this.

Yesterday on The Five, Greg Gutfeld said he started not to like Romney a little while reading this article. (He then realized he wouldn't like himself if he read a news article on his high school behavior.)

So should Greg Gutfeld have been quoted as an eyewitness in this report, too?

See, Greg Gutfeld has the exact same knowledge of the incident as Stu White -- they both heard of the incident from the Washington Post.

So why shouldn't Greg Gutfeld be reported as an eyewitness, too? That's what they did with Stu White.

The Washington Post was so determined to frame up Romney they misrepresent people who only heard of the story from they themselves as witnesses.

This deliberate attempt to juice up additional "disturbed" witnesses exposes that they were, in fact, Out To Get Romney here.

I suppose this was also obvious from how they subtly suggested that Romney engineered a Suicide by Natural Causes, and how a very silly and harmless prank -- rousting fellow students while dressed as a cop -- is cast as a "terrifying" incident.

But this cinches it. The story is overwritten and hyped up beyond all reason -- silly pranks cast as "terrifying," the word "terror" and "terrified" appearing multiple times -- and then, needing some justification for their overwrought hype, they start inventing other witnesses who, in their telling, have "long been bothered" by the horrors they witness, their every night's sleep haunted by Romney's psychotic... um, pranks.

Now that they've been exposed, they say they'll add an update "explaining" things.

Explain it? You deliberately misrepresented a man has having known of the incident and having been "long bothered" by it despite the fact that he heard about it, from you, three or four weeks ago.

You're going to "explain" that, Washington Post?

How? With another lie? "Mistakes were made"? An "inadvertent editing error," perhaps, like we saw three times (each time even more inadvertently!) at NBC in the Zimmerman matter?

posted by Ace at 03:07 PM

| Access Comments