Last Updated on: 23rd October 2013, 12:32 pm
Wow. I just read a Snopes article that would have been rather unremarkable, except for a bit at the bottom.
The story goes that someone told the New York Post that Michelle Obama was busily gorging herself on expensive room service food at the hotel while Barack Obama was giving a speech. So, without checking a single thing, type typedy type type type, up it went. Then they found out that this was in fact a pile of false information, but not before it spread like wildfire over the net. So, they wrote the following retraction.
The source who told us last week about Michelle Obama getting lobster and caviar delivered to her room at the Waldorf-Astoria must have been under the influence of a mind-altering drug. She was not even staying at the Waldorf. We regret the mistake, and our former source is going to regret it, too. Bread and water would be too good for such disinformation.
Hmmm. Isn’t that a little harsh and one-sided? Yeah, it sucked that someone gave them a bunch of false information, but isn’t it the reporter’s job to check out all information received by any sources? Wouldn’t a quick check with the hotel have revealed the truth? I think someone’s feeling just a touch ashamed of their sloppy work, and so they should. But if that’s the way they feel about their source, then I guess bread and water is too good for the reporter as well.
