WashPo corrects error spotted by DU posters:

[flowomo]

a lot of people on DU last night spotted a crucial error in a front-page story in today's Washington Post (it was online last night). I e-mailed the writer of the article and told her we decided it was a mistake. Here is my e-mail to her:

There was much discussion on democraticunderground.com last night about the accuracy of this statement in your 10/26 article on the Fitzgerald indictments:

"Unlike the jury in a criminal trial, grand jurors are not weighing proof of guilt or innocence. They must decide whether there is probable cause to charge someone with a crime, and they must agree unanimously to indict."

Posters insist this is wrong -- that a mere majority is all that is needed to indict. See the discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5172926

is a correction in order?

and I just got this back from Carol D. Leonnig:

Yes, it is wrong and will be corrected. Thank you.

[texpatriot2004]

1. Cool. DU Rocks. n.t

[Skinner]

2. Well done.

:thumbsup:

[zonkra]

32. Missing

is "I'm sorry I'm such a media whore that I thought I could just turn this trick and you'd go away!"

I don't wonder why.

Good job, skinner. You blew that corporate prostitute's cover for all to see, and she had to 'fess up to being just another media callgirl on the take.

[shadowknows69]

3. Do we friggin rule or what?

I hope the moderators charged the WAPO a healthy consulting fee :woohoo:

[Kukesa]

37. We rule!! n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

DU the editors of the National Papers

Who'd thunk of this?

[deutsey]

4. Thank you for approaching the reporter with civility

:thumbsup:

[flowomo]

11. as a former reporter and editor and now a columnist...

and college journalism teacher, I understand the myriad ways that stories can get off track and always try to show respect when raising an objection. I wish more of my fellow DUer's would do the same. The press deserves a kicking now and then, but the disrespect for this important institution gets out of control here -- even as we all rely on these reporters for our information.

[Straight Shooter]

26. I always address members of the press with respect when I contact them.

When they do respond personally (not the automatic mailer), I get a polite response in return.

I save my hyperventilative ranting for DU and other friends. :)

Good job, flowomo.

[librechik]

5. BLOGS FOR AMERICA ON THE JOB!

:thumbsup:

[xultar]

6. Nominated!

Congratulations DU!

[Loonman]

7. Too bad they bury the retractions

Way back in the paper at the bottom of page 34b or something. Scumbags. Down with the WaPo! Down with the NYT!

[WiseButAngrySara]

8. Thank you! I read this last night, and although I was close to 100%

certain that the statement about unanimity was incorrect, I still had residual doubts! Thanks so much for the clarification.

[AValdoux]

9. I'm so proud.

I ordered three DU t-shirts Monday. I will be proud to wear them, even the one that that says "this country is run by shitheads", w/du logo on the back. I live in a very red area of W Texas.


AValdoux

[WiseButAngrySara]

14. So do I !!! What part of W Texas isn't 'very red?' ....n/t

[AValdoux]

27. There's 15-acres S of Abilene

Everyone living on it votes Democrat. Me, my husband & two adult kids who still use our address as their permanent base.


AValdoux

[fla nocount]

30. Buffalo Gap? I, like your children found a trail leading away. n/t

[dubyaD40web]

10. I just saw MSNBC do the same thing

About the unanimous vote. We should do the same thing to MSNBC.

[VolcanoJen]

12. Great job, flowomo.

:thumbsup:

[meganmonkey]

13. DU is the best!!

:)

[WiseButAngrySara]

15. K & R for all those who might have been mislead! Thanks again.

Great job....AND

:kick:

[skooooo]

16. WaPo can't do their own research...

...idiots.

[DemReadingDU]

17. Thank you!

[flowomo]

18. Here's a tip on e-mailing WashPo reporters:

they make it pretty hard to find the direct e-mail addies for their reporters (and not all reporters there accept e-mails), but here's where I got Leonnig's. You might want to bookmark this for future reference:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/interact/longterm/stfbio/wpemail.htm#L

[MADem]

19. The bright spot about the total fiction of a unanimous vote

If the numbskulls on the right falsely assume a unanimous vote is necessary, they will spend less time trolling over here, no doubt secure in the belief that surely one soul will have been bought off by the Crony Cabal.

[electropop]

21. Heheh, hit 'em with a surprise left hook.

:spank:

[mzmolly]

20. DU so rocks!

And :yourock: too! Thanks.

[Spazito]

22. Well done!

:thumbsup:

[npincus]

23. good catch!

[hwmnbn]

24. Hey flowomo, did you at least get a tip?....

You know, a little something for the effort. Something to wet your beak? It was the least the WP could do.

[flowomo]

25. LOL -- "wet my beak" -- I love that image....

always been one of my faves. And nah, getting an actual response from Skinner was, like, reward enough. :)

[WiseButAngrySara]

28. Wasn't that amazing? Congrats and thanks again.....n/t

[Oeditpus Rex]

29. I hate to rain on the parade, but

how certain are we that DUers were the first to flag this?

I've worked in a lot of newsrooms, and "Yes, it is wrong and will be corrected" is the response of a reporter who's tired of being told of a mistake. The typical response to a polite alert such as flowomo's is along the lines of "Thank you for bringing this to our attention."

Just sayin'.

Still, it's good that folks are on the ball. Doesn't really matter who gets there first. :applause:

[flowomo]

31. that's a valid point.....

I can't say this was the first or only response the writer got -- though I did have to dig for that e-mail address a bit. I will say this though: I sent that e-mail at 1:24a.m. last night (well, this morning, Wednesday) and I would expect it was among the first she saw on the matter. So, I'd agree it was one of the earliest of the (probable) many responses she got. What I was really interested in was the thoroughness of the legal information posted on DU before I sent the e-mail. A lot of people nailed the mistake quickly and accurately. If all that comes out of this is that Leonnig knows that DU name a bit better now, well, that's something.

[OneForLuck]

33. Way to go DU!!

I love it when we affect change!

[liberaltrucker]

34. A hearty Welcome to DU

:hi:

[OneForLuck]

36. thank you !!!

:hi:

[Hissyspit]

35. Yes. We covered this in a thread in July by simply googling:

Here is syrinx's original thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4097641#4097659

I sent him to this site to find out how many in a grand jury need to vote for indictment:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/ustp_manual/vol5ch11.htm

This is what we found out:
"So it seems like a majority from a jury of 23. But this part I don't understand:"

The federal grand jury is a body consisting of at least 16 and not more than 23 individuals selected from the jury pool by the district court. Once 23 individuals are qualified as grand jurors, the district judge will select a foreperson and a deputy foreperson from the 23.

"If at least 12 grand jurors vote in favor on the return of the indictment, it is a "true bill" and it becomes a formal charge once it is signed by the attorney for the government."

"It sounds like 23 are required, but 16 are acceptable.
So the short answer is: 12 grand jurors must vote for indictment... out of a grand jury of 16-23."

It took me all of TWO MINUTES to figure this out with the Department of Justice website. Hey, WaPo, google is your friend.

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. DU rocks my socks!

I have no clue what that means, but I think it's a good thing.