And then there is her blog, on which it's clear she doesn't think she did anything wrong--the victim's grandmother's letter has apparently not moved her at all--AND starts maundering about "what are facts" and "whose truth?" and how she only had 750 words, so lying was her only option. Apparently the fact that a once-good magazine had to apologize publicly for her is irrelevant, since it all depends on what is meant by "facts." As someone above pointed out, she has no business publishing what she writes.

But the final indignity is that Erik Wemple is paying more attention to the Post Magazine than anyone who works there. Cheers City Paper for pointing out that somebody cares.

what kind of reader would be outraged that the paper is doing reportorial digging and watchdog fact-checking to illuminate Postie incongruities and, perhaps, fabricated tales?

i wonder what the IP addresses of these cats would reveal.

But for the reporter to shut down the door on Erik says volumes about her integrity. If she can't face questions concerning her writing, she should quit writing or be fired.

Pay attention folks. XX Files is not your community policing newsletter. It's not the Metro section. Pay some more attention. If it did originally mention SUNKIST or FANTA OR CVS, the WAPO would have rightfully cut and edited most of that excess. As a reader, I did not find this essay the least bit ambiguous. A parent sees a child stealing and has to make a decision. If you want a novel, read one.

And Wemple's observations? . jesus f----his recent batting average is about 6%, forget the 12. He is really insufferable when he gets like this. He fancies himself as a crusader?? So he goes to the lowest thing a person on the newspaper foodchain can be--an unprotected low paid freelance writer. Puffs out his chest, comes an inch away from defamation, smirks through every one of his syllables, and then pretends to be doing the community a big service by pissing on this woman through speculation?. Wonder why Fleming didn't let him in her house, offer muffins and a nice long sit down chat?

The narrative was beyond tight, flawless and powerful. I, as a very old "seasoned" reader did not need more luxurious adjectives...or to hear that the soda was not just orange. Didn't need to hear that the kid's sneakers were frayed, and his raincoat was what, tartam plaid LL Bean? And frankly, even as cynical as I am, I did NOT appreciate the implication that someone who has made an error previously is suddenly a full blown pathological liar who "needs to be stopped?" Let's all be so pristinely judgemental of ourselves.

What I need in this city and from this "ALTERNATIVE NEWSPAPER"is some real work. Instead of pontificating about this trite crap and pretending that some minimum wage CVS serf who probably was not even employed there when this happened is going to answer your questions on record, here is a great idea. How about doing the actual investigative piece?

WHY is this or any drugstore profiling minors, stopping them and asking for receipts,( and I would not be surprised if actually unzipping their knapsacks)?
ARE they doing it to all children or just the "suspicious undesirables (read boys and minorities)?"

At best, Fleming is guilty of lazy journalism - if you are going to focus a column on your own personal experiences, you better nail every particular detail with precision. I want to know what type of sneakers the boy was wearing, what color his sweatshirt, if his jeans were frayed, etc. That is not only how you keep your prose interesting, but how you ensure that your story is credible. Anything less should be regarded with suspicion. To not even mention the store name and neighborhood (remember the five W's?) is tenuous.

Are we saying that Fleming deliberately lied? Not necessarily, but the ambiguity with which she treated her article is enough to give us pause.

Your "story" is so derivative--such an effort to make something from nothing for the sole purpose of targeting an individual whom you've decided for some reason that you don't like--as to be pointless. It is nothing but ginned up speculation that this free-lance writer who once-upon-a-time wrote an essay, some nuances of which caused something of a tempest among those most directly involved, lacks credibility with respect to a totally unrelated essay months later. Why would she name the exact drugstore, people involved, etc.? It's an essay based on life's experience, not a police report.

You archly pose questions about Ms. Fleming's credibility based on your own transparent desire to get mileage from an old controversy, then you pat yourself on the back because you tried, but supposedly were foiled, in your so-called sincere efforts to investigate the truth of an essay Ms. Fleming wrote about some shoplifting kids in her neighborhood. Sit back for a minute and think about how petty and absurd your efforts running around the neighborhood behind her looked. Why would Ms. Fleming talk to you after your publication rail-roaded her a few months ago? Nothing she could have said would have changed your hit-job. And a "late hit," at that.