How about the Post’s report about the Iraqi lawyer who helped lead U.S. rescuers to Jessica Lynch, the Army private taken prisoner and hospitalized following a deadly ambush in the war’s early days? Here’s the link to that story, which the Post published on its front page April 4, 2003.
How about the Post’s front-page article of the day before, which told of Lynch’s supposed heroism in the ambush, how she had fought fiercely and “continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds and watched several other soldiers in her unit die around her”?
It was an electrifying report, one picked up by news organizations around the world.
But it turned out that the Post’s hero-warrior tale about Lynch was embarrassingly wrong in all important details. Lynch never fired a shot in Iraq; she was neither shot nor stabbed, as the Post had reported, but badly injured in the crash of a Humvee as it fled the ambush.
Same for the Post’s partial rollback of the hero-warrior story, published in mid-June 2003: Also an empty link.
So what gives? Why is some of the Post’s content about the Iraq War — and Jessica Lynch — freely available online while the more embarrassing material shows up as empty links?
Is this a matter of digital scrubbing, akin to Vogue magazine’s excising of a flattering profile of the wife of the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Asad? The Post last month described the Vogue matter as “an almost-unheard-of step for a mainstream media organization.”
Periodically over the past four weeks, I’ve asked the Post’s ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, about the digitally unavailable versions of the newspaper’s reports about Lynch.
Pexton has promised to look into my questions.
But four weeks on, he has yet to offer a substantive reply.
I have asked him: “Does the embarrassment quotient explain this apparent inconsistency?” That is, is the Post too embarrassed by its botched reporting about Lynch to make the links freely available online?
I suspect it is.
In his most recent email to me, on May 16, Pexton said he receives “200 to 300 e-mails per day and we’re always behind. We are working on trying to get you some answers on this.”
I replied the following day, thanking him for the update and saying I hoped to hear from him soon.
I also wrote:
“I believe my request can be distilled thusly:
“Why is some Lynch-related content from 2003 freely available online (see here), while content more embarrassing to the Post (see empty links here, here, and here) not available? Shouldn’t those empty links be restored, and added to the Post’s link-rich Iraq War archive, where Lynch’s name and image already appear?”
That email produced no response from Pexton, however.
The Post‘s digital archive of the Iraq War offers a functioning link to the article about the Iraqi lawyer who helped guide rescuers to Lynch.
In fact, the only U.S. soldier identified by name and image at the archive is Jessica Lynch.
I discuss the Post’s reporting of the Lynch case in a chapter in my latest book, Getting It Wrong.
Recent and related:
- Digitally scrubbing WaPo’s embarrassment on Jessica Lynch?
- Two weeks on: Still waiting for WaPo on missing Jessica Lynch online content
- Recalling who gave us the ‘manufactured heroism’ of Jessica Lynch
- Jon Krakauer rolls back claims about WaPo ‘source’ in Jessica Lynch case
- Lynch says she could’ve embraced Post’s phony hero story
- Why WaPo should reveal sources on bogus Jessica Lynch tale
- Pentagon ‘caught creating false narrative’ about Lynch? How so?
- Ignoring the astonishing reporting lapses in Lynch case
- Jessica Lynch, one of the ‘buzziest’?
- Recalling the real hero of Nasiriyah: It wasn’t Jessica Lynch
- Recalling the overlooked heroism of Sgt. Walters
- ‘A debunker’s work is never done’
- The Post ‘took down a president’? That’s a myth
- ‘Persuasive and entertaining’: WSJ reviews ‘Getting It Wrong’