Surprise, surprise: MSM story about Rubio turns out to be false

Yawn, so predictable.

Yet another mainstream media story about Senator Marco Rubio, citing the infamous "unnamed sources," makes a claim about him that is proven to be demonstrably false within twenty four hours.

This time, it's Jonathan Karl blogging for ABC News who posted a breathless headline saying that "Marco Rubio Not Being Vetted to Be Mitt Romney's Running Mate," citing, of course, some vague "knowledgeable Republican sources." He didn't even bother to find an "unnamed source advising the campaign" or "unnamed source close to Romney." Just some anonymous people, allegedly Republican.

Well, Mitt Romney clarified on Sean Hannity's show, in a segment that will air tonight, only he and top adviser Beth Myers know who is being vetted for VP. RedState posted a partial transcript:

Hannity: “What did you make of the ABC News report this morning that said Marco Rubio was not being vetted but Governor Tim Pawlenty was being vetted? Any comment on that story?”

Mitt Romney: “I get a kick out of some of the speculation that goes on. I’m not going to comment on the process of course. But I can tell you this: only Beth Myers and I know who is being vetted.”

Hannity: “Does that mean Ann Romney doesn’t know?”

Romney: “Even Ann doesn’t know. We talk about the possible people that I might select. But in terms of actually who is being vetted, that is something only two people know. And Beth Myers doesn’t talk.”

Hannity:“Is there a shortlist?”

Romney: “There are a number of people who are being vetted and that is obviously the group we are considering most seriously.”

Then, less than an hour ago, the Wall Street Journal posted that Romney had gone on the record with a group of reporters at a campaign stop in Michigan, and said that ABC's story was "entirely false,” stating explicitly, “Marco Rubio is being thoroughly vetted as part of our process.”


Can't get much clearer than that.


UPDATE: Hot Air has a good post about how this story might have happened, and a statement from Jonathan Karl insisting he was right. Personally, I see nothing here to alter my long-standing practice of assuming that any story that cites nothing but "unnamed sources" is complete and utter junk until someone is willing to actually respond on the record.