Julian Assange's Ultimate Publicity Stunt: Running For Australian Senate?

No That Won't Backfire At All: Questionable Story About Obama's Daughter Disappears From The Web

from the rampant-speculation dept

Mon, Mar 19th 2012 6:57pm — Mike Masnick

Generally speaking, the press has something of an implicit agreement that they don't use underage Presidential offspring in politically tinged stories. For obvious reasons, it's considered to be a pretty cynical move. Of course, if they actually do something newsworthy, it might be a different story. This afternoon a bunch of stories started appearing, talking about how President Obama's daughter Malia was traveling in Oaxaca, Mexico as part of a trip with some classmates (and 25 secret service agents). This story was reported on by the AFP wire service, and some tied it to the fact that the State Department recently issued a travel advisory urging Americans to stay away from parts of Mexico. Not surprisingly, some picked up on this story to suggest some sort of... something. Double standard? Hypocrisy? Of course, the details suggest this really was not much of a story. If you actually read the State Department warning, it makes it clear that there is no warning in place for Oaxaca -- so this trip doesn't appear to go against that warning.

It seems likely, then, that the AFP decided to pull back the story once someone pointed that out, but the story is now rapidly disappearing from a variety of online publications (big and small), leading to questions and easy political points about how the story is being "scrubbed." Google News listed about 27 versions of the story when I looked, and later, following the links, I found almost every single one of them was flat out gone. In most cases, they were replaced with a 404 (including The Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Australian) or sometimes just redirecting people to a front page (Huffington Post and International Business Times). The only version I still found up was at TurkishPress.com, but it might not last very long.

Now, I tend to think that using the President's underage kids for a political story is generally a low blow and not particularly nice, but if there is something newsworthy happening, it should be fair game. I also think that, from the sound of it, this story got blown out of proportion by those who didn't bother to actually read the details of the destination or the State Department's specific warning which notes no problem at that destination.

But, having said all that, simply having the article disappear completely, rather than putting up a correction or an explanation of what happened, simply fuels both the conspiracy theories and the interest in the story. It's exactly the wrong way to go about dealing with the situation. There are a variety of possibilities here. The administration may have asked the press to pull the story, which would only generate more interest in the news. The AFP, upon realizing that it shouldn't have posted the story, may have issued a kill order/retraction of sorts. Or perhaps there's some other reasoning. But there are good ways to handle these situations and ways that are guaranteed to backfire. Simply making the articles disappear is pretty much guaranteed to backfire and generate more interest in the story, even if it's a total non-story. Replacing the original story with a "hey, we thought this, but we got it wrong," would have been much more effective.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: corrections, journalism, malia obama, online, press, stories, streisand effect

76 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

eric, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:10pm

thank you for a voice of reason
great post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwen, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:12pm

Follow up
Sidwell Friends school spring break is not until next week.

The original story claimed that Malia's spring break trip started this *past* Saturday.

Also, the only source was anonymous and claimed to be an unspecified Mexican state official.

It's a dirty trick, and it needs to be stomped out.

http://www.sidwell.edu/calendars/list.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:13pm
  
  Re: Follow up
  That's just what they *want* you to think - you're too gullible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:48pm
  
  Re: Follow up
  It's a dirty trick, and it needs to be stomped out.
  
  A perfectly reasonable explanation and the *proper* response would have been to POST A RETRACTION and EXPLANATION in place of the original story, rather than deleting it.
  
  Deleting it, stupidly, added fuel to the fire. That's the point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Just John (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 12:43am
    
    Re: Re: Follow up
    In China, it's called harmonizing
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 1:52am
    
    Re: Re: Follow up
    I can't help but notice that a number of the reporters of the "story" were British tabloids, in fact two of the worst who yet somehow manage to keep a false air of respectability among foreigners.
    
    Look at any number of blogs that point out their tactics, and you'll see that this is actually SOP for most of them. In fact, the Daily Mail in particular seem to have developed a habit of posting retraction months later, even hiding it away on the US page even when the original story was British news. They also have a have a habit of amending the original story without an apology or admission of an error.
    
    It's certainly no surprise that the right wing echo chamber is making this stuff happen to feed its own paranoia. It's a shame that mistakes made by foreign media with questionable credentials and track records are so easily taken at face value. I'm not entirely sure what can be done, however. Even the British establishment had problems getting the Press Complaints Commission to do anything until the recent phone hacking scandal. I don't know how you can stop publications already notorious for lies and celebrity "stories" based on anonymous allegations from doing so, let alone force them to follow honest procedures when mistakes are made.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 20 Mar 2012 @ 5:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Follow up
      "I can't help but notice that a number of the reporters of the "story" were British tabloids"
      
      I wonder if they obtained the scoop by tapping white house phones.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hephaestus (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 6:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Follow up
        Actually, they just asked Anonymous to dial into the FBI briefing on the subject. ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2012 @ 8:03am
    
    Re: Re: Follow up
    "A perfectly reasonable explanation and the *proper* response would have been to POST A RETRACTION and EXPLANATION in place of the original story"
    
    The problem is the original story would still be out there. It would still go on to haunt them for years. The lies that it contained would be used at Conservative fund raisers to show how Obama is so bad, wasting the public's money on things. It just wouldn't go away.
    
    Remember, there are still a percentage of Americans who think Obama was born in Kenya, that he is Saddam Hussain's brother, that he is a muslim, and so on. So many lies, all piled up to try to discredit someone.
    
    Sort of like Techdirt dealing with the **AAs. ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Torg (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 8:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Follow up
      The original story is still out there and won't go away, any more than showing a birth certificate convinced those people that Obama isn't Kenyan. The only way deletion has a chance of working is if no one read it before it went down. Besides, the people that believe those things and think they matter were never going to vote Democrat anyway.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:15pm

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn..........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torg (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:44pm

This is just another exhibit showing how the old gatekeepers think they're still in charge of the gate. In past eras, if they said a story didn't exist, it didn't exist. They haven't yet adapted to the idea that people remember and spread things on their own now.

That said, this is a pretty terrible story. Even if there was a travel advisory for the area the girl went to, those advisories generally come with the assumption that tourists won't have armed guards. It makes perfect sense for someone with Secret Service protection to be less concerned about a random shooting or mugging or whatever. Whoever read something into this has lost their conspiracy privileges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt T. (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:49pm
  
  Re:
  I think in the sketchier parts of Mexico, a random shooting or mugging would be the least of someone's concerns, especially the president's daughter.
  
  If it wasn't apparently a safe region, there's no way I (as the president, or the secret service, or anyone else who could make the decision) would have anyone related to a major political figure going down there, with or without protection. But since it's a safe region, the point is moot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2012 @ 8:34am
  
  Re:
  WHAT? The old gatekeepers? Are you being serious? This is obviously the work of those dirty fretardian pirates!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Smarta** (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:09pm

Makes sense, considering...
Actually, it would make perfect sense that they would pull a story like this and try to keep it quiet. Posting a story about the president's daughter traveling somewhere (underage or otherwise) to another country could provide anyone with an anti-American agenda to attempt a kidnapping or something worse in order to control the president. Face it. If you were someone in power and had an underage daughter travel somewhere, you wouldn't want that story getting out. And if it did get out, you would most likely attempt to have it removed as quickly and as quietly as possible. Even the unimportant guy that I am, I wouldn't want people to know when my kids are traveling, let alone have it posted on the news.

"Mr. Smarta**'s defenseless daughter traveling on Boofrar Airlines on Flight 31541234512345 to Durkastan" might as well read "Hey! Someone go kidnap his daughter!" as the headlines.

Don't keep it quiet for the president. I mean I didn't vote for the guy, that's for damn sure. But I would keep it quiet for his daughter's safety. She's still just a kid/teen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bengie, 20 Mar 2012 @ 4:55am
  
  Re: Makes sense, considering...
  25 SS agents. I'm not sure it's an issue that someone knows. One would need a small army.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jsl4980 (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 7:13am
  
  Re: Makes sense, considering...
  I agree that pulling the story for the safety of the president's daughter and her classmates is a good idea. They can discuss the political implications after they get back home safely. Or discuss them now without detailing her itinerary and location.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
toyotabedzrock (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:22pm

Automated
If it came from the AFP it might have been taken down in an automated way or in accordance with a signed agreement.

It seems as if this is more of a safety issue for his daughter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:25pm

About backfires.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57400234-93/pakistan-pulling-plug-on-controversial-inte rnet-filter-report/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
G Thompson (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:34pm

The Australian paper "The Daily Telegraph" is all part of a stable of papers in Australia that are all owned by News Limited (Murdoch Inc.).

nuff said!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:35pm

Let's see, the President is spending our tax dollars to outfit his kid with a 25-person escort to Mexico and pointing it out is a "low blow"? If she can't be made safe with a reasonable escort (1-2 people tops), maybe she should stay in the White House or daddy could use his salary to pay the bill. I don't see why I as a tax payer should pay for her field trip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:17pm
  
  Re:
  Oh, I don't know, probably for the same reason you paid for secret service protection for every other child of a president.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PrometheeFeu (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    She gets 25 Secret Service agents on her at all times when in the US? Security is about balancing protective measures with risk avoidance, making a cost-benefit analysis. Let's say that Obama's kids wanted to tour the front-line in Afghanistan and that doing that safely would require a company of marines and constant air support. Everyone would understand that the right thing to do would be for the girls to not go and spend all that tax-payer money.
    
    Here, it's the same thing on a smaller scale. They can either put the girl in a dangerous situation and fly over 25 agents, or they can keep her in DC with her normal staff which is probably much smaller. (and at the very least does not need to fly there) The responsible thing to do is for Obama to explain to his kids that no, it's not his money to spend and that he can't justify having the American people's money finance such an expensive security apparatus just so his kids can go visit Mexico. But of course, he instead lets his kid go and makes us pay for it. Excuse me if I find that unacceptable.
    
    And if people have done that in the past, that is no excuse. It is plainly unacceptable for Presidents to be so cavalier with tax-payer money.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Steve, 19 Mar 2012 @ 10:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The 25 agents is completely made up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PrometheeFeu (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 11:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        [citation needed]
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Steve, 19 Mar 2012 @ 11:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Citation already provided. See below. "Discreet but tight security" is not a description of 25 secret service agents. 25 secret service agents, plus marines, plus mexican police would be an ARMY.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PrometheeFeu (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 11:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I take your point, but that's hardly conclusive.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Steve-o, 20 Mar 2012 @ 12:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Neither is the fact that nobody could stand by their source for "25", which would explain why it was pulled.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 10:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, we should also prevent the kids from going to movies, to restaurants, to parties, to friends' houses, or anywhere outside the secret underground bunker where they can protected for the low cost of only 1 secret service agent.
      
      If you're going to freak out and have a tantrum every time someone under secret service protection is traveling somewhere that requires additional staff, you're going to spend quite a lot of time hyperventilating over insignificant amounts of taxpayer money.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PrometheeFeu (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 11:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thank you very much for your concern for my well-being, but my heart and breathing rates are within normal parameters. As for the significance of taxpayer money, while larger amounts are more problematic and may indeed raise my heart-rate, I disapprove on principle of people who reach into my pocket whether they take a tenth of a penny or $1,000. I disapprove of it even more when they are using my money for the personal gratification of themselves, their friends and family. So, sure, I'm liable to throw tantrums and freak out (aka, write a couple comments on a website) when I hear about people stealing my money.
        
        I'm not sure exactly how many agents it is appropriate to spend on the President's kids and wife. But I would say 25 is definitely excessive. I would tend to say 3-5 is about as much as is acceptable. Having known the children of a number of executives in dangerous countries who got along just fine with that number, (of people with much less training than secret service agents I might add) I would say that's good enough for the president's kids if you keep them out of particularly dangerous areas.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Three Shillings for..., 20 Mar 2012 @ 12:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey, guy. You go ahead and hold on to those fractions of pennies. I'm not exactly rolling in dough but I'll pony up so that the President's daughter can enjoy a safe field trip abroad.
        
        Of course, I think the only factual bit of information in this is the fact that the President's daughter has indeed joined her class on a field trip in a safe(r) part of Mexico and is most likely there right now enjoying her stay. I hope she enjoys herself and returns home safely with a new appreciation for other cultures.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PrometheeFeu (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 7:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good for you. It's very generous of you to chose to give the guy a hand so his daughter can go visit Mexico. Oh wait, you had no choice in the matter. He just reached in our pockets and took what he wanted. Well... You are still a generous soul for wanting to give.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 20 Mar 2012 @ 5:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How many were assigned to the Bush twins on their excursions, like to Buenos Aires for example.
        
        http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2006/11/us_embassy_asks/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PrometheeFeu (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 7:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know. But on the page you linked to, it said: "No Secret Service agents were anywhere to be seen in the lobby, according to ABC News� Joe Goldman." My point was not that Obama's daughter shouldn't have gone to Mexico. My point was that it was irresponsible of her father to spend extra tax-payer dollars for it. So sending his kid with insufficient security is one way to do this. Of course, the Bush twins were adults and so if their father said: "I can't send enough Secret Service to protect you effectively", they could answer "OK, we'll risk it." Given how young Obama's daughter is, I simply assumed that the "go to Mexico with insufficient security" option was off the table.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Bob, 20 Mar 2012 @ 9:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        to keep things in perspective: http://costofwar.com/en/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PrometheeFeu (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 12:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There are serial killers who rape and murder dozens of people. Does that mean we should stop handing out parking tickets?
        
        So yes, the wars that Bush (as well as Clinton, Obama, Bush Sr) are orders of magnitudes worst than what we are talking about here. But that is not an excuse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2012 @ 11:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But on the page you linked to, it said: "No Secret Service agents were anywhere to be seen in the lobby, according to ABC News� Joe Goldman."
        
        Just because they weren't seen doesn't mean they weren't there.
        James Bond notwhithstanding, they're called "secret agents" for a reason...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PrometheeFeu (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        OK, so your assessment that significant extra protection was provided is based on what exactly? I'm not saying it's a bad assumption, but the article supports only the fact that Bush's daughters were in Buenos Aires and that they may have put themselves in a dangerous spot. Nothing in there suggests there were significant security arrangements made. So when abc gum asks: "How many were assigned to the Bush twins on their excursions, like to Buenos Aires for example." my answer is that I don't know, but that the article in question suggests few, not many.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2012 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Having known the children of a number of executives in dangerous countries who got along just fine with that number (3-5 agents)..."
        
        Do any of those executives have unfettered access to the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PrometheeFeu (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 12:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Neither does the President of the United States. There are plenty of fetters. If he started abusing his power wantonly to comply with demands by kidnappers, the cabinet would most likely declare him incompetent and the VP would take over. Now of course, Cheney in charge isn't exactly what I would call peachy, but it's nowhere near as bad as you think.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 26 Mar 2012 @ 10:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Now of course, Cheney in charge isn't exactly
        > what I would call peachy, but it's nowhere
        > near as bad as you think.
        
        Actually, it would be pretty bad, because in order for Cheney to be in charge, it would mean our entire system of government had collapsed, considering Biden is the vice president.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2012 @ 4:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > She gets 25 Secret Service agents on her at
      > all times when in the US?
      
      Who said anything about "at all times"? Think about it. Protection isn't a 9-5 job. It's a 24-hour-a-day job. And agents are people who need food and sleep just like everyone else. So what does that mean? Yep, shifts. Those 25 agents are really three 8-hour shifts of eight agents a piece.
      
      A little common sense goes a long way.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
zos (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:39pm

umm, from a strictly security standpoint, i can absolutely understand scrubbing that story from the web, if she's still in mexico. it's a failed state, damned near an active civil war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:42pm

First off, it is probably getting scrubbed because it was a bunch of bull. Rather than keep running the story, which is getting a ton of play on conservative attack websites, they decided to drop it. After all, left up, some people would continue to think it was true, and push it from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gaius Obvious, 21 Mar 2012 @ 1:54pm
  
  Re: The story was true
  If the story was 'a bunch of bull' then why did the White House issue a statement saying that Malia was safe after the earthquake in Oaxaca?
  
  http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2012/03/malia-obama-safe-after-earthq uake-hits-mexico/1
  
  Seems to be confirmation that she was there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwendolyn Of The Shire (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:01pm

Origin of the story...
I'm trying to figure out the origin of the story.

On March 16th, the website Oaxaca Times made this blog post:

http://www.oaxacatimes.com/otblogmenu/76-maliaobama

"Malia Ann Obama, daughter of U.S. President Barack Obama, arrived on a commercial flight to Oaxaca for a private tour on the evening of Friday March 16th.

Surrounded by a security team, Malia Obama arrived at the headquarters of the commercial airport in the capital to join a group of twelve young teenagers from a United Airlines commercial airliner departed from Houston, Texas.

Official information states that President Barack and First Lady Michelle Obama's oldest daughter, who is thirteen, has an escort of twenty-five agents composed of marines and members of the Secret Service. All will wear black suits and use radio communication.

Private security escorted Malia Obama in three armored trucks to Hotel Camino Real, located in Oaxaca's Historic Central District.

According to her leaked agenda, during the weekend Malia will visit the "El Arbol del Tule," the archaeological site of Monte Alban, and the towns of San Martin Tilcajete, the site of many local handicrafts, and San Bartolo Coyotepec, in addition to the main attractions in the city of Oaxaca.

Malia's is one of two Obama children. Her sister, Sasha, is 10 years old."

The earliest references to Malia (supposedly) being in Mexico in a reputable source come from the online site of a Mexican newspaper, El Universal.

This was published yesterday:

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/836662.html

It contains a photo that it credits (oddly) to Xinhua. Xinhua does not appear to have any stories about Malia being in Mexico.

El Universal's story claims that Malia arrived in Oaxaca on Friday , flying in from Houston. The story claims that Malia is being protected not only by Secret Service but also the Marines.

It sources the story to unnamed "witnesses."

Now similar photos are also on the Web, apparently traceable back to the Twitter account "hugovelasco18", the Twitter account of Hugo Alberto Velasco, a photog for Notimex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwendolyn Of The Shire (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:15pm

Also...
The author of the original Oaxacatimes.com piece (byline says Brendan Missett) apparently didn't get anything published there prior to mid-February.

His LinkedIn profile says he's in Boston, which makes him an odd guy to be reporting on happenings 2,000 miles away in Oaxaca.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve, 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:27pm

It wasn't a story. It was user-generated content posted on the Yahoo Contributor Network, and some newspapers mistook it as a legitimate news story.

Drudge was fooled, too, and has since pulled it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 20 Mar 2012 @ 5:22am
  
  Re:
  Drudge fooled? Oh heavens to Betsy!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gaius Obvious, 21 Mar 2012 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re: Then the White House itself was fooled too
  The White House confirmed Malia is in Oaxaca and is 'safe' following the earthquake there.
  
  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/white-house-malia-obama-safe-from-earthquake-in-mex ico/
  
  "'In light of today�s earthquake, we can confirm that Malia Obama is safe and was never in danger,' the first lady�s communications director Kristina Schake said in a written statement."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwendolyn Of The Shire (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:38pm

Yahoo Contributor Network
Steve: my weapon-of-choice is Google. Do you know if the Yahoo! contributor piece pre-dates 3/16 at around 11 p.m.??

I had a feeling that this is all a bunch of journalists copying and pasting from one another, which makes me sad and slightly depressed (as a former student journalist and journalism major when I was in college).

At any rate, the biggest tip-off that something is amiss is when journalists don't name their sources.

This happened multiple times as I see it:

* Brendan Missett (who as I see is the first in time, although perhaps Yahoo! beat him) has a story with literally no attribution. It looks like somebody copied a press release verbatim.

* Hugo Albert Velasco (of Notimex?) tweets a photo, it's not clear he actually was the person who took it (there's really not a whole lot of description but then again, you know, Twitter's 140 character limit sort of deters that). Any case, it's odd that his employer doesn't seem to be the one all over this story, don't you think?

* El Universal and the other Mexican media seem to be repeating Missett with spotty attribution. Not clear if they did any independent verification and if so, how much.

* AFP seems to be repeating what the Mexican media said.

* Everyone else attributes it to AFP.

Very, very murky.

Now to be sure, I must admit that I have no idea where the First Daughter is right now. I can't prove to you she's not in Oaxaca.

But the provenance of all these news stories must make one wonder, and my guess is that we have a lot of journalists who aren't really doing good journalism, and it's quite possible, as I stated earlier (perhaps a bit too confidently, although I still suspect) this could very well be a Republican dirty trick, and you've got inexperienced or incompetent journos aiding and abetting them.

(It would not be the first time!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve, 19 Mar 2012 @ 10:09pm
  
  Re: Yahoo Contributor Network
  She is in Oaxaca. That part is true. That's where the truth in these "stories" ends.
  
  She is not there on "Spring Break" with a bunch of friends. She's there on a school-supervised class trip.
  
  The part about being accompanied by 25 secret service agents is made up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Suzanne Lainson (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 11:10pm
  
  Re: Yahoo Contributor Network
  Yes, it is possible that various papers, journalists, and bloggers pulled the story so they wouldn't look stupid. Given the current focus on fact checking, maybe they are paying attention. Sure, they could have posted a correction, but given the choice between saying they were wrong and just taking down the story, perhaps they opted just to take it down.
  
  And we have already seen that once a story that is wrong gets out in public, it often outlives the corrections if the wrong story serves someone's agenda. God knows there is a lot of politically motivated misinformation out there that seems to have a life of its own.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwendolyn Of The Shire (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:51pm

Although fwiw, the White House's last picture of the family shows only Sasha... Malia obviously didn't go to church with the rest of the family on Sunday.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/photogallery/march-2012-photo-day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwendolyn Of The Shire (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:52pm
  
  Re:
  http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/imagecache/gallery_img_full/image/image_file/p031812ps -0014.jpg
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve, 19 Mar 2012 @ 10:38pm

Check this mexican news story out (had to run through Google translator):

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fw ww.eluniversal.com.mx%2Fnotas%2F836662.html

"Malia Ann Obama, eldest daughter of U.S. President, Barak Obama, vacationing in this destination accompanied by a group of friends and a discreet but tight security."

25 Secret Service agents would hardly be "discreet".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
focusedgrin (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 11:06pm

Malia
It seems to me that her parents want her to experience life as normal as possible, such as going on a field trip with her class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FormerAC (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 7:21am
  
  Re: Malia
  If her parents had ANY concern for her having a normal life, he wouldn't have run for President. The moment he ran for President, any chance of a normal life ended. 25 Secret Service? Yeah, it will be a normal field trip with her class, lol.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keii (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 11:24pm

Yeah, but...
That would be admitting that the News isn't always right and people should think for themselves. They can't exactly be having that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2012 @ 12:54am

I'd guess that they'll need a lot more protection for her when every bloody website on the net tells everyone else on the net that she's there, than they would have needed if everyone with a website had minded their own bloody business. Maybe that's why other responsible websites chose to pull the story. I'd be happy to see this one disappear, too, as long as it was voluntary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SuperiorAnonymousCoward, 20 Mar 2012 @ 4:46am

I understand removing the article to protect the president's child but because she's underage is bullshit. I say no matter what age the child is he/she is a acceptable target for news.
And I'll happily go to whatever areas of mexico she is, take long range pics, post on some random pc and gloat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Q, 20 Mar 2012 @ 6:15am

Presidents Daughter
Okay, maybe it's a lot of nothing. But, every web site but a few removes the story. That seems fishy, especially given the number of web sites that there are in the world. And then she travelled to Oaxaca, Mexico on United from Houston with her class? Oh, Flight UA 4664 is operated by EXPRESSJET AIRLINES DBA UNITED EXPRESS. It is an Embrae Air and contains approximately 50 seats. It leaves Houston at 620 pm and arrives at 758 pm. THere is only 1 flight from Houston on United. The Presidents daughter does not fly anywhere on an Embrae air, especially overseas. And certainley not without a security detail, no matter how small or large. Be real, the story was censored and removed from the Web, even though we all know that is impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 7:04am

I guess it wasn't approved by the ministry of truth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 7:07am

If you're going to freak out and have a tantrum every time someone under secret service protection is traveling somewhere that requires additional staff, you're going to spend quite a lot of time hyperventilating over insignificant amounts of taxpayer money.

LOL, problem is they expect no one to complain about "insignificant amounts" 3 trillion times over.

They are all significant amounts. So hire private security for a work related trip and try the 'insignificant amount' spin on them and see how quick it lands you in an unemployment line, but for some reason people just want to ignore the cash government wastes - all while the US Government is charging 40 cents of every dollar to the big bond credit card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 7:10am

The responsible thing to do is for Obama to explain to his kids that no, it's not his money to spend and that he can't justify having the American people's money finance such an expensive security apparatus just so his kids can go visit Mexico. But of course, he instead lets his kid go and makes us pay for it. Excuse me if I find that unacceptable.

Indeed, well said.

But the problem is - we don't have a responsible administration, they spend cash like an idiot with a credit card - literally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2012 @ 11:22am
  
  Re:
  "But the problem is - we don't have a responsible administration, they spend cash like an idiot with a credit card - literally."
  
  How much did Bush's two wars cost?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Torg (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 11:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    What does the stupidity of the last administration have to do with the idiocy of this one? Aren't people allowed to hate both sides?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Norma, 20 Mar 2012 @ 7:16am

Malia's visit
The Oaxaca Times hasn't scrubbed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FormerAC (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 7:23am

Before we get all ...
Before we get our conspiracy theories all warmed up, perhaps there is a simple explanation ...

Kidnapping is still a big industry in Mexico, right?
The drug cartels are still at war with, well, basically anyone who isn't in their cartel, right?

Maybe they were just trying to keep some details of her visit a secret to avoid painting a great big target on her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 10:01am

With all thats going on
Just goes to show, how inept our lamestream media is.

This story was reported on by the AFP wire service, and some tied it to the fact that the State Department recently issued a travel advisory urging Americans to stay away from parts of Mexico.

What bullshit. Sooooo stupid.

I agree with FormerAC, most likely trying to not advertise her whereabouts.

Now as for trying to scrub the stories, that is where the conspiracy lies.

"The administration may have asked the press to pull the story" Gasp! El Presidente asked a "news" publication to censor? No. way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suzanne Lainson (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 10:49am

The word from the White House
White House scrubs Malia Obama story - POLITICO.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
molecule (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 2:47pm

Obama daughter safe after Mexico earthquake
"By Agence France-Presse"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2012 @ 3:30pm

Why would you send your children to a war zone?

Yes Mexico today is a war zone, 80% of the police works for the drug cartels that are the de facto power in many locations, bodies are found by the dozens scathered all over the country, the drug lords have their own mobile radio infra-structure the Zeta's are ex-special-forces.

Why would you send your kid to a place like that?

Now since most of us are hardwired to care for our young, I feel that this will get a pass from the general public is not like the president is doing this for any apparent political reason, it seems a truly selfish interest of caring for his young and that everybody can relate to.

He could have send in the Marines too and I doubt people would care or make a fuss about it unless of course people found out that their own are not being protected the same, he was modest sending in just the secret service even though others don't have that kind of protection.

Now there is a catch, if this is done after the risk has passed people will go nutts on it, because then it is viewed as censorship, right now it is justified censorship, everyone will let this one pass because it appears to be for the protection of children, once the risk is gone the justification for it to continue also goes away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2012 @ 5:44pm

Remember what happened when people started taking notice of the news story (originally posted on September 11, 2001)that casually mentioned that United Flight 93 had landed safely in Cleveland?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrei, 22 Mar 2012 @ 3:31am

What is even stranger
Hello,
I have no info if there is any connection between your story and another one, but maybe you have more access to "digging tools" for finding more (the link is bellow)

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/23135/did_the_mexican_government_know_there_was_going_to_be _a_big_earthquake_on_march_20th/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Torg (profile), 22 Mar 2012 @ 4:51am
  
  Re: What is even stranger
  Such circumstances would be suspicious, if it were possible to predict when earthquakes would happen with anything resembling reliability. However, since modern seismologists are lucky if they can get the right year, it seems unlikely that Mexico has figured it out to within a day.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]