A Significant Retraction Needs notice

The need for corrections has perhaps never been stronger than in this Washington Post story, which was quickly cited by many other publishers. Today I was reading an article at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies called "Iran Escalates Cyber Operations Targeting U.S." The article discusses a looming "cyber-enabled economic warfare" between the US and Iran and includes the sentence "After Iran shot down an American drone last month, U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) conducted operations to disable the computer systems Iran uses to control rocket and missile launches." The words "conducted operations" are a hyperlink to the Washington Post. The WaPo story is Ellen Nakashima's June 22, 2019 story which NOW has the headline: "Trump approved cyber-strikes against Iranian computer database used to plan attacks on oil tankers" ... however there is an important correction noted:

"This story has been updated to correct the target of the U.S. cyber strike on Iran. It was a computer database used to plan attacks on oil tankers, not computer systems to control rocket and missile launches."

The previous headline, still viewable at the invaluable archive.org WayBack Machine was "Trump approved cyber-strkes against Iran's missile systems."

Sort of a big difference, right? In one we disable an offensive weapons system. In the other, we make it harder to use a database about ships. Journalists, bloggers, and Twitter users were quick to declare that we had launched a cyber war, with headlines such as "We Are At Cyber-War" and statements such as "now Iran's missile system doesn't work any more." and accusations that the Iranians were running a disinformation campaign to discredit President Trump. Major media outlets repeated the story, and continue to share their articles "uncorrected."

Some of the stories included:

• The Guardian - "US launched cyber attack on Iranian rockets and missiles"

• Forbes - "US Attacks Iran with Cyber Not Missiles - A Game Changer

• Stratfor - "The US Unleashes Its Cyberweapons"

How many other authors and journalists are going to continue to spread this misinformation, which, in all fairness, very likely WAS received from sources who had been asked to spread the inaccurate message? The implications could be staggering when the message is going against a regime known for temper-tantrum responses. (Ask Sony Pictures or the Sands Casino what those may look like.)

Its also changing the dialogue of thoughtful journalism moving forward. The New York Times (hardly a political ego-blogger), ran the headline on October 4, 2019: "Iranian Hackers Target Trump Campaign as Threats to 2020 Mount" which includes the statement "In recent weeks, United States Cyber Command was asked to develop options for retaliating against the missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabia's oil fields. Officials reported that a cyberstrike against Iran was emerging as the most attractive option, in an effort to avoid the kind of escalation that might result from a more conventional strike."

We need to be careful to call out error and responsibly correct known false information. Thanks to the Washington Post for attempting to do so! Ellen Nakashima and her editors did the right thing. Lets see if others will follow suit!