Republicans Anonymous

The problem with getting a reputation for leaving unpleasant truths out of reports is that nobody believes your reports after a while.

Consider Newsweek's report and then retraction that an upcoming government report would confirm allegations the Koran had been desecrated by Gitmo interrogators:

...The source told Isikoff that the report would include new details that were not in the FBI e-mails, including mention of flushing the Qur'an down a toilet. A SouthCom spokesman contacted by Isikoff declined to comment on an ongoing investigation, but NEWSWEEK National Security Correspondent John Barry, realizing the sensitivity of the story, provided a draft of the NEWSWEEK PERISCOPE item to a senior Defense official, asking, "Is this accurate or not?" The official challenged one aspect of the story: the suggestion that Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, sent to Gitmo by the Pentagon in 2001 to oversee prisoner interrogation, might be held accountable for the abuses. Not true, said the official (the PERISCOPE draft was corrected to reflect that). But he was silent about the rest of the item. The official had not meant to mislead, but lacked detailed knowledge of the SouthCom report.
Source: Evan Thomas, Newsweek How a Fire Broke Out, May 23, 2005 issue

W and the Bush League eliminated inconvenient statements regarding global warming from an EPA report (Source: BBC News US 'censored' green report, June 20, 2003.) Who can now say whether early drafts of the SouthCom report included these allegations, but subsequent editing removed them - or whether the allegations are in fact false?

Our CEO President learned all about distorting reports to hide unpleasant truths at Harvard Business School.