Washington Post and the Rush Limbaugh Memory Hole

A few days ago the Washington Post broke down and revealed that the Rush Limbaugh boycott had failed. Hotair quoted the paper:

Limbaugh’s advertising losses may have been less than media accounts suggested. While more than 100 advertisers told Premiere that they didn’t want to be associated with “controversial” radio programs of any kind in the wake of the flap, some of these companies weren’t regular Limbaugh sponsors in the first place.

Carusone said most of the advertiser exodus over the past month appeared to be among companies whose ads aired only in regional or local markets, he said. “Fewer than five” nationwide sponsors of the program actually pulled out, he said…

Today while writing my “Under the Fedora” column I went to the Washington Post page and suddenly this paragraph looks…different.

Carusone said most of the advertiser exodus over the past month appeared to be among companies whose ads aired only in regional or local markets, he said.

Interestingly enough the sentence saying “fewer than five” is gone. Here is the screen shot from HotAir:

and here is a screen shot of the Washington Post link as of 2:20 p.m. this afternoon (Click to enlarge):

I guess the reality of the numbers is just too much for the Post to leave posted for posterity.

Update: Instalanche, thanks Glenn and this from comments that deserves repeating:

If Woodward and Berstein were dead, they’d be turning over in their graves…except that Woodward is now the executive editor.

It’s one thing to chase down Nixon…quite another to tell the truth about Rush.

Update 2: Don Surber links and says:

Paul Fahri made the mistake of telling the truth about Rush Limbaugh. That must be a violation of the Washington Post’s stylebook.


Update 3:
Under the Fedora is now up.