In a way, this reminds me of a similar ham-handed episode from this summer involving a Post decision to pull online content without initially telling its readers: the sudden disappearance of a Dana Milbank/Chris Cillizza online video suggesting Hillary Clinton ought to quaff “Mad Bitch” beer. At the time, CJR’s Greg Marx wrote that:
In the absence of some extraordinary circumstance, simply removing material from your site is the wrong thing to do. If you feel that material you’ve published crossed some line of tone or taste, and that it went so far that you cannot in good conscience keep it up on your site, the responsible thing to do is to own up to the mistake publicly, not to make the item in question disappear.
That’s a good standard. And, it’s important to note, one that makes the truth of Turque’s accusations a bit beside the point. If the papers editors think his post crossed the line, they should say why—not only publicly, but on their own site.
Erik Wemple’s follow-up reporting adds a little nuance to Turque’s charges, as well as some explanation about the paper’s reasoning behind the decision to pull portions of the post. That’s a start.
But readers shouldn’t have to go Googling to get it.

I've been following the Washington Post's articles and editorials regarding Michelle Rhee for some time. It seems to me that there is a reason why the paper keeps backing her, no matter what she does. Is there truth to the story that there is a possible conflict of interest here (e.g. Kaplan tests)? This might be something to investigate.
Linda Johnson
#1 Posted by Linda Johnson, CJR on Fri 29 Jan 2010 at 12:39 PM
What's to investigate? Kaplan is in the business of improving student test scores. As that single measure becomes the be-all and end-all of education, Kaplan's stock rises. Kaplan is the *only* profitable division of the Washington Post Company.
#2 Posted by Trulee Pist, CJR on Sun 31 Jan 2010 at 02:35 AM
>> The proximate cause of Turque’s post was a Fast Company interview...
______________________________
proximate
adjective
1 (especially of the cause of something) closet in relationship, immediate
2 nearly accurate; approximate
______________________________
Proximate cause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause
______________________________
"proximate cause"? Say what? Is that a joke or something? What's wrong with "Turque’s post was basically about a Fast Company interview..."?
I admit though "The proximate cause of Turque’s post" has Dadaist charm.
#3 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Tue 2 Feb 2010 at 08:40 AM