When is a factual error not an error and a correction not a correction?
Answer: In Bizaro World aka the Lawrence Journal World.
When 60 Minutes reporter Lara Logan botched a story about a security contractor who provided a bogus eyewitness account that was almost entirely fabricated of the Benghazi attack, CBS laid a six-month pink slip on her.
However in the case of the “award-winning” Lawrence Journal World’s reporter, humorist and columnist Chad Lawhorn all he had to do was dance.
And dance he did.
Lawhorn may have inadvertently set a Guinness World Record Tuesday for the longest newspaper correction – a 10 paragraph masterpiece – attempting to explain away his front page Sunday story in which Lawhorn reported on a local man claiming to be a former Vietnam POW who had received numerous medals for valor.
Barnett
“For a good part of the conversation, Delwin Barnett simply was the quiet guy at the end of the bar room table who had a hard time hearing…” Lawhorn’s Sunday column began. “The quiet guy at the end of the table is retired Capt. Delwin Barnett, and he has two Silver Stars, three Bronze Stars, three Purple Hearts and the Distinguished Service Cross to his name.”
“Yeah, I guess I’m not supposed to be alive,” Barnett quipped to Lawhorn.
Hold it right there…
After getting a call from a source skeptical of Barnett being a Vietnam POW, Lawhorn decided to do a little reporting and verify the claims he included in his Veterans Day column.
Here’s where it begins to get really twisty.
“I contacted Barnett upon hearing that concern, and asked him to explain the discrepancies,” Lawhorn wrote in Tuesday’s column. “Barnett continued to tell me that he was a Vietnam POW and had received the medals that he claimed. But I didn’t find the assurances I was seeking. For example, I was unable to see his medals because he says he became involved in a dispute that involved someone setting his car on fire. The medals and many other possessions were in that car. He said a former colonel of his is working to get the medals reissued, but he couldn’t provide me the name of the colonel.”
Mary Schantag
And just like that, what started out sounding like a correction of a reporting error, morphed into something more akin to a diary entry.
“I regret including the information in the article, and apologize that I didn’t vet it better,” Lawhorn finally wrote midway into the column.
“Making false claims about a person’s time in military service is the sort of thing that can enrage people, and understandably so,” he added. “That’s why I feel I also should say this: After talking with Barnett, I do believe he believes the things he told me.”
See what I mean? Bizarre!
Lawhorn concluded the column by discussing the matter with POW Network chair Mary Schantag who explained that “stolen valor” – people making false claims about their military service – is an increasing problem.
Lawhorn’s conclusion:
“I could launch a more exhaustive investigation of Barnett’s past, but I doubt that I will,” he wrote. “I will leave it at this: I’m not saying Barnett’s claims are false, but I don’t have the comfort level with the information that I require.”
Not so freaking fast, Schantag says.
“I’m absolutely sure Barnett’s not a Vietnam POW,” she says. “And when you have one lie, it brings everything else into question.”
Schantag says she offered to help Lawhorn verify Barnett’s medals claim and he gave her his cell number to call him back with “the necessary information.”
“I called and I left everything he needed on his voicemail,” Schantag says. “But I received no return call and never heard back from him.”
Next thing Schantag knew she was reading that Lawhorn was dropping the story, so she went ahead and put in a request of her own for the information.
“Only because the (Journal World) reporter said he was not going to pursue it,” Schantag stresses. “Which is a slap in the face of Vietnam Veterans because nobody’s looking for the truth – I mean, we are – but how do you put out a story like that and you find out everything he said was a lie and then you don’t pursue the truth? So we are looking for those records.
“How do we even know he went to Vietnam? Or was even in the service? It’s going to take me 4 to 6 weeks though because I’m not in the media, but (Lawhorn) could have gotten it in 72 hours.”
Stanton’s take on Lawhorn’s handling of the matter?
“Lack of responsibility,” she says. “This story will be around forever on the Internet. These lies will be around forever on the Internet. Where is the truth? What (Lawhorn) should have done is fill out the Freedom of Information form that I sent him and put the truth out on the front page of the newspaper in the same place he put his first story.”
Count Lawrence resident and Iraq war Navy veteran Mike McKinney of Doug’s Automotive as skeptical of Barnett’s claims as well.
“You know, any time you receive a medal you get a letter of accommodation with it,” McKinney says. “Would that have burned up in his car as well? Why would he keep those in his car? And there should be documentation in his service jacket about what medals that he got. And a friend of mine that was in the Air Force in Vietnam said it’s pretty much unheard of to get two silver stars – it’s possible, but…”
A silver star is awarded to soldiers for “gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States.”
For example, Navy, Air Force and Marine pilots “are often considered eligible to receive the Silver Star upon becoming an ace (having five or more confirmed aerial kills).”
Stanton has provided KC Confidential with the forms needed to verify Barnett’s medals claim from Lawhorn’s Sunday column and we will be pursuing it.
To be continued…
hey if the big man on kcc can get away with all his lies and b.s….why can’t some
nobody in Lawrence.
Drop it. If the guy lied….move on.WE’ve got important things to discuss like
cobblers in Lawrence.
Deja vu?
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2004/sep/23/lauded_soldier_never/
Interesting
I’m a 66 yr old Vietnam vet -circa 68-69 (not my idea – I got drafted)..
I was awarded a single Bronze star — in recognition of my efforts to get them .. before they got me.
I long ago lost the “medal” -nor do I any longer care about it … but can easily prove the award, ( and my service), with the copy of my discharge paper right here in my desk drawer – the “DD 214” form every vet is issued.
The reporter could have asked for a copy.
Plus — the dude looks young for a Nam vet — hope they press charges against him, if he’s a liar.
Not a crime to lie about military service unless trying to receive benefits or a government job. Unfortunately the First Amendment also protects liars lies.
And usually if you dig into the frauds you will find criminal activity.
http://www.stolenvalor.com/Target.cfm?sort=date
yes.. you’re correct .. I thought (wished?) the bill could send BS -ers like this clown ( if proven) to jail..
but.. googled it.. and..it just nails them if they lie to receive “tangible benefits”.
Thanks for the info
“I was awarded a single Bronze star — in recognition of my efforts to get them .. before they got me.
I long ago lost the “medal” -nor do I any longer care about it…”
I still care about it.
God Bless You and thanks for your service.
well said about the DD214
It is worth nothing that if you are a surviving spouse or issue you can get the DD214 which lists start date, end date, commendations received and rank upon discharge.
I was in the Army (active duty) from 88-98 and the KSNG 98-09. I received a DD214 from both when I left….I couldn’t tell you where they are now, nor could I tell you how many or what awards I received. Why? Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter to me.
I would guess it’s possible that at the time these things were lost or destroyed, they didn’t matter to Delwin Barnett, either.
Oh, Barnett was in the Army, so it’s either “Captain Barnett” or “CPT Barnett”….
A late Happy Veteran’s Day to all you guys.
yes…despite our online battles…god bless all our veterans!!!!
Even chuck…god bless you for your service!
Harley
Lots of military-oriented comments, but for those of you following the journalism side of the story…
The lesson to be learned is that Lawhorn should have at least attempted to verifiy Barnett’s claims before publishing his story. That he did not is not only completely unacceptable journalism, but it indicates a lack of common sense.
A man who appears as young as Barnett makes a barstool claim of an INCREDIBLE number of medals and it didn’t even spark a glimmer of doubt or questioning?
The only thing lamer than that is that instead of issuing a “correction” and/or a “clarification” and then running things to the ground, Lawhorn’s editor allowed him to make a complete fool of himself and the newspaper in Tuesdays column.
And now that Lawhorn and the Lawrence Journal World are being called out by the very source he cited in Tuesday’s column as an authority in determining the veracity of Barnett’s claims – now what?
What an embarrassing mess!
Hearne, did you take any journalism classes? I ask because of the vast change in the classroom and universities in the 80s which shifted from veterans of the industry teaching to professors having no real world experience in the craft.
One thing that was stressed by every instructor was a journalist who has a story idea will start with a notion of what the story will be. But if the story is not what they originally thought, they follow the story where it leads.
Your thoughts?
Yes, at the University of Arizona in Tucson
If course you follow the story where it leads and for the most part you go in with at least some notion of the facts and what part of the story may remain untold.
In the above case, I missed (skipped) the boring, front page story on Sunday about a handful of veterans who gather at a local brewpub during Happy Hour on Fridays.
But there was no missing Lawhorn’s column Tuesday.
Never seen anything like it before and I’ve seen a lot.
It was – somewhat obviously – a joint effort between Lawhorn and the Journal World (presumably his editor) to make the best of a bad situation.
The incredible part of it is the course they set upon to put the mistake behind them and the protracted excuse making, rationalizations and utter silliness of Lawhorn’s explanations.
It made me think that this would make a good adult episode of “Leave it to Beaver.”
Lawhorn is the newspaper’s main city hall and news reporter. His byline is on the front page practically daily.
The flip side of that is that he doubles as a blogger/columnist with an “aw shucks” style of writing that won’t quit.
It’s a blurry line, but obviously this demonstrates that he needs to park the “aw shucks” and focus more on his reporter role (or at least the basics of reporting).
What’s ironic about this statement – “The lesson to be learned is that Lawhorn should have at least attempted to verifiy Barnett’s claims before publishing his story. That he did not is not only completely unacceptable journalism, but it indicates a lack of common sense.”
Answer: A number of the articles you wrote during your days at the Star were held out due to your ineptness for verifying facts. Not to mention your lack of copyediting skills (see your incorrect spelling of “verify”).
That’s hogwash, Ghost…
I suppose though if it were true, that would explain why I was making six figures, plus expense – double and more – what reporters and columnists that had been at the paper twice as long as me were making.
PS (as Craig likes to say) I was never a copy editor and even if I were everybody makes typos. Try reading the paper – especially online – lately and seeing the typos. Plus in print.
The days of staffing double what they really needed are o-v-e-r.
From just under 2,100 employees 10 years ago to 600 and change today. So you know, you’re not alone – there are plenty of Wm. Rochelle ghosts floating around!