Well I can confirm that you didn't do an interview with Chairman Carey, contrary to your statement that you may have interview him.

I think my questions about your post were fair.  I find it very interesting that when pressed, you suddenly clam up and refuse to comment any further.

It's also important to note that a “code of ethics” doesn't mean much if you are not going to follow it.

….

By serving the public thoroughly and honestly, Fellows provide credible, professional, and truthful accounts of events and issues….

New Journalist Fellows should be honest, tireless, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information for the public.

New Journalist Fellows should:

  * Ensure the accuracy of all information, regardless of where it comes from. Review facts and stories….

  * Identify sources when possible. The public must be able to know how reliable sources are….

  * Never misrepresent events in an attempt to oversimplify or take events out of context….

  * Never plagiarize….

  * Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant….

  * Acknowledge the difference between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be understood as such….

New Journalist Fellows must maintain a sense of decency and integrity by treating sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect….

  * Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived, and disclose unavoidable conflicts….

  * Keep an open dialogue with the public in an effort to maintain and improve standards.

  * Encourage the public to use the information they have to question and analyze news stories on their own, and voice grievances when they feel stories are wrong….

  * Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

“I do not have any comment on that matter at this time.”

Why did you add the word “reportedly”?

Yes, that does seem rather more than likely.  And, in case you haven't noticed, the Grand Canyon upon occasion will look somewhat unsmallish — from a hypertechnical standpoint.  Among other standpoints.

As to how your lapses (plural) in basic journalistic chops affected the story, it's quite simple:  it turned it from accurate into inaccurate. 

As to your headline, how could you have fixed it?  you ask, more or less.  (I think; your writing isn't clear.  Maybe your were only asking about your passive voice problem.) 

Could this be easier?  Are you really serious?  Well, anything to oblige, although I think this only takes anything north of the most  mildly keen eye for the obvious: 

You could, as I previously suggested — feel free to read the posting that's apparently stimulated your inner [personal characterization deleted] — the three-letter word, “DFL” (without the quotes, to your headline.

Happy to help.  Wouldn't want people to think you were feckless, after all:

Dictionary.com

Unabridged (v 1.1) – Cite This Source

feck

I just came across this story from the Associated Press.  This story was published before your post and it contains the exact quote from Chairman Carey that you used in your original post.

“Carey said there's a '90 percent probability' the caucus date will be accelerated. His party's executive committee intends to decide on the issue next month.” Source: Associated Press

Was your source the Associated Press?  And if so, why didn't you source them in your original post?

Also, why would you write that you may have done an interview with Chairman Carey?

“Maybe I did interview Ron Carey…and maybe I got the information from wire sources…and maybe there's another option you haven't thought of.”

According to the communications director at the Republican Party of Minnesota, Chairman Carey didn't do an interview with Minnesota Monitor, nor was one granted.

There's a word for this Jeff.