Yesterday, I wrote about a story in which Barack Obama was visiting a group of kids and one of the kids held out his arm and asked Barack to sign his hand. Barack declined to sign the boy's hand, saying that he didn't want to get in trouble with the boy's mom for getting the boy's hand all marked up.

Barack had already been signing drawings and things -- everybody was happy including all the kids. Smiles all around.

Here's the video of that moment:

Somehow, an idiot reporter managed to turn this into a story about a fist-bump declined: "As he left, a boy tried to give him a fist bump. Obama said no."

The Washington Post was one of the publications to punk themselves by running the false report. So how do they correct themselves?

A Bump in the Fist Bump Story

By Jonathan Weisman
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- During Barack Obama's visit to a Christian social service organization in Appalachian Ohio yesterday, the presumptive Democratic nominee appeared to shy away from a fist bump proffered by an exuberant young boy.

But the Obama campaign is trying to beat back that narrative, filed in a pool report from the tour and widely picked up elsewhere. That's not how it was, campaign aides say -- and forget any notion that he was cowed by a Fox News broadcaster calling his famous fist bump with wife Michelle last month a "terrorist fist jab."

Turns out, according to a tape of the event, the boy was asking Obama to autograph his outstretched fist, not bump it, jab it, or anything else.

Here is the actual exchange, as reported by the campaign:

Is it really that hard for reporters to admit they screwed up? Why does it take them until the third graph to flatly assert what actually happened? And why in the foruth graph do they ad the "as reported by the campaign" disclaimer?

Yes, this is meaningless story. Which is exactly why it is so weird that the WaPo cannot admit it was wrong.

It's your dishonest media, hard at work.