Retraction

Retraction

I strive for accuracy as much as possible when I post on my blog if I am doing an informational piece. Most of the time I write commentary or editorial.

But if I am writing an informational piece, I try to be accurate. Even though I’m just a blogger and not a real journalist, I above all, want to get it right.

Which is why it sucks that the information I was provided was not 100% accurate as it relates to the names of the people that I was told were ALLEGEDLEY going to be indicted.

In my defense I included the following disclaimer: “The names that are ALLEGEDLY going to be indicted tomorrow are (these names are UNCONFIRMED):”

To ensure that I was clear that the names were as yet UNCONFIRMED, I later ended the piece by stating, “Remember this is the information provided to me by my sources and may or not be 100% accurate. Watch for developments/arrests/turn-ins, etc. tomorrow.”

That being said, Craig Patton’s name was included in the list by my sources but that information turned out to be inaccurate. I’ve been told that I should apologize to Mr. Patton.

I had a good faith belief that the information I provided was accurate. In fact most of the names were accurate.

But in light of the fact that the information regarding Mr. Patton was inaccurate, he is entitled to clarification. Mr. Patton was not included in the list of the people indicted. Although I stand by the work I did in the piece, Mr. Patton should interpret this retraction and clarification as an apology.

Mr. Patton's record of public service is admirable and its unfortunate that my sources erroneously included his name.