Newsweek’s editors say, “We entirely failed to anticipate the ways in which the essay would be interpreted, distorted and weaponized.” The essay’s first paragraph ends: “That, according to these commentators, makes her not a ‘natural born citizen’—and therefore ineligible for the office of the president and, hence, ineligible for the office of the vice president.” But nowhere did it describe, name, quote, or link to one of “these commentators.” In their non-retraction, the editors go on to say, “The op-ed was never intended to spark or to take part in the racist lie of Birtherism” (dig the capital B there). They may not have intended that, but the author’s hanging reference strongly suggests that’s exactly what he intended, and that he he used that journalisticky convention as a feint. So either (a) Newsweek’s ‘editors’ don’t even read what they publish, or (b) they’re in on the game. Instead of holding the author accountable by banning his ass, they say “we hold ourselves accountable” and left the essay up — and their “transparency” guarantees a lot more clicks. And you can be sure they discussed that. Fishy sh*t all around, and it seems like it’s part of a pattern. My takeway: if good journalism has an upside, desperate journalism has even worse downsides.