Gawker Slow to Correct Misreporting Re: Dawn Eden Photoshop
Perhaps it's a bit much too expect from a blog that once dismissively her as a "Crazed, Christ-Loving Re-Virgin," but Gawker sure did take long enough to correct its reporting that attributed fake SAT scores in an anti-Sarah Palin photoshop to be those of blogger and Catholic author Dawn Eden. Last Friday the electronic gossip rag posted the photoshop and asked readers to judge for themselves if it was a fake or not.
[See Warner Todd Huston's related blog post on that here.]
In an early morning October 14 post at her Dawn Patrol blog, Eden noted that while Gawker corrected the record in the body of its October 13 blog, a misleading headline remained that insisted that "Sarah Palin's SAT Scores Actually Belong to Born-Again Virgin Dawn Eden." In truth, Eden's scores had been altered (view her actual SAT scores, available online here).
Writing at 12:30 a.m. today, Eden noted that the Gawker contributors that had the authority to change the headline had not yet done so:
As I write this, Gawker weekend editor Ian Spiegelman has corrected the falsehoods in the post's text, but it still has the lying headline, "Sarah Palin's SAT Scores Actually Belong to Born-Again Virgin Dawn Eden." (That last link will take you to the current version of the article on Gawker.)
I have been told by Spiegelman that he does not have the power to change headlines. Only publisher Nick Denton and writer Sheila McCleary may do so, and they have not responded to my requests as of this writing. So, the lie remains, although the story contradicts the headline.
Eden posted an update at 8:34 a.m. this morning after receiving an e-mail from McCleary, who changed the headline ever-so-slightly:
UPDATE, 8:12 a.m.: McCleary writes, "Hi Dawn, I changed the copy at 6:30 pm and I changed the hed at 2: 30 am because I just got HOME FROM THE BAR, yes it's fixed!"
The new headline reads, "Sarah Palin's Fake SAT Scores Actually Belong to Born-Again Virgin Dawn Eden." I wouldn't call that a retraction, but then, as commenter Shaun G. notes, "Not many people consider Gawker a reputable publication."