Hmm, I wonder if our constant goading about Breitbart's mostly invisible corrections policy at Big Government had anything to do with this sudden turn-around. The timing sure is interesting because yes, Breitbart has posted an odd, belated correction, or update, in regards to the debunked story his site hyped last week about how Bertha Lewis, the CEO of ACORN, had supposedly visited the White House in 2009.

Surprise! The story was not true.

But rather than just say so, here's what Breitbart came up with [emphasis added]:

UPDATE: According to Politico's Ben Smith, the Bertha Lewis who went to the White House is not ACORN's CEO but another woman named “Bertha Lewis.” I contacted Smith to tell him that Big Government would offer a correction if the “administration official” who offered the information went on record and told us who the “other” Bertha Lewis is and got the unnamed administration source to come out from behind the veil of anonymity and use his/her name. So far, according to unnamed White House sources, “different” people with the familiar names of Malik Shabazz, Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers were discovered on White House visitors logs. As I skeptically asked on my Twitter account, “What are the odds?”

First thing Monday morning, Smith contacted the White House and White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki came from behind her anonymous veil and confirmed for Smith, “it was a different Bertha Lewis, though she declined to share details about that visitor, citing privacy reasons.”'

Isn't that kind of bizarre? Apparently nobody at Big Government, let alone its fearless founder and leader, is capable of confirming whether a story that the site ran days ago is, y'know, accurate. So Breitbart contacts a reporter who doesn't work for him and asks him to call somebody at the White House to try to figure out if the Big Government scoop was hollow. (Hint: It was.)

Good grief. Behold more “conservative journalism,” where even the overdue corrections are lame.

UPDATED: As usual, Breitbart seems quite confused. During a typical bout of his rambling, late-night tweets, he suddenly seemed to back off the correction and claim that the WH story was legit but that he just couldn't, y'know, prove it. Also, that it's now Media Matters' job to prove the negative at the center of the WH non-story. Or something.

Sorry Andrew. We knock your 'scoops' down. We're not responsible for trying to piece them back together.