CNN Challenges Politico's Carson Story, Politico Backpeddles

[washamericom]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

You people are the best denialists on the planet.

Carson said he was offered a full scholarship.

Everyone entering West Point gets a full scholarship. Shall we say it again?

The "scholarship" is a contract to enter the military with four years of education first! If you graduate from one of the academies you are elevated to the rank of O-1 with a minimum of five years active duty service and a total of eight year commitment (reserves) minimum (no additional education or specialties).

If you wash out or quit, you leave the academy to serve out anywhere from 0 to four years active duty in the enlisted ranks depending on circumstances. How many colleges and universities pay a salary to you as part of a "scholarship" or require you to work off your indenture ship if you quit?

Appointment to Scholarship = Apples to Oranges

how much is the salary, just curious.