The Daily BS • Bo Snerdley Cuts Through It!
The Daily BS • Bo Snerdley Cuts Through It!

Get my Daily BS twice-a-day news stack directly to your email.


Politico gets a White House ultimatum — then retracts Susie Wiles story and apologizes

by

THE DAILY BS: HOW MUCH CAN YOU HANDLE?

SPARE ME THE BS (I’ve got things to do).

  • The White House demanded corrections or retractions of three Politico reports concerning Susie Wiles.
  • Politico corrected its account of Wiles’ role in Katie Zacharia’s Sean Hannity interview.
  • The outlet defended its journalism while the administration threatened a review of its relationship and possible legal remedies.

LAY IT ON ME (I’ve got time).

Politico’s reporting on White House intrigue has produced a fresh installment: the intrigue over Politico’s reporting.

After receiving a demand for retractions, corrections and a public apology, the outlet amended a story about Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and then-press secretary Katie Zacharia’s interview with Sean Hannity.

The original account suggested Wiles helped arrange the interview. Politico’s correction said its follow-up reporting found she did not play a direct role in setting it up.

The backstage mastermind apparently needed to be moved out of the backstage.

White House Counsel Will Scharf’s letter targeted three reports, including accounts about Wiles’ standing and the reaction to Politico’s coverage. It gave the publication 48 hours to address the administration’s complaints.

Scharf demanded an apology to Trump and Wiles and threatened a review of Politico’s White House relationship and consideration of legal remedies.

Fox News separately rejected the account that Wiles and Trump adviser Danielle Alvarez were involved in booking Zacharia’s appearance. The network said Hannity controls his own interviews and questions.

Politico acknowledged the correction while defending its work through its lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. The outlet argued that transparent corrections demonstrate journalistic professionalism and accused the administration of trying to intimidate its reporters.

So both sides claimed accountability. One supplied a demand letter; the other supplied a corrected headline.

The correction addressed the interview story. It did not amount to a withdrawal of all three reports or the public apology the White House sought.


DBS WIRE SOURCES (I’ve got all day).

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *