Hmmm. What happened here?
We’ve been getting emails this afternoon about a piece in the Post by Daniela Deane about the Michael J. Fox/Rush Limbaugh imbroglio. I didn’t get a chance to read it. But readers have said they thought it took Limbaugh’s claim (that Fox was somehow faking or exaggerating his symptoms in his TV spot) too much at face value.
As of 8:30 PM the link is still on the front page with the byline Daniela Deane and Bill Brubaker. But when you click through the link it’s to an article on the same topic by David Montgomery. And the tone seems really different than that described of the Deane article.
Anybody know what’s up with that? Could be nothing more than slotting out one article for an updated one. But I’m curious. Anyone know anything?
Late Update: Here’s what TPM Reader TT says …
One thing on that Michael J. Fox article. In the earlier Daniela Deane article, they said they tried to contact spokespeople for Fox but hadn’t been able to yet. It sounds like they finally did, and also heard from a source who’d seen him on Boston Legal (that wasn’t in the original article either).
The basic structure of the two articles is the same.
Even Later Update: My friend Jon Cohn seemed to manage a bit better than the Post.
Really, Really Late Update: Here’s what appears to be the text of the original Post story. If this is a faithful copy, you can see why the editors sent it down the memory hole. What were they thinking?
