Different Paper, Different Reporter, Same Story?

That Butterstick sure is cute, so cute that he has reporters tripping over each other to give the little tyke some ink. Unfortunately for The Christian Science Monitor, their panda story was a Washington Times retread.

The Washington Times’ Amy Doolittle wrote a piece March 15 exploring the possibility of the panda becoming D.C.’s official animal, noting that “the fact the bamboo-chewing panda is not native to the District — or to the United States, for that matter — apparently doesn’t matter.”

D.C. Council Chair Linda Cropp even weighs in with Doolittle. “The panda ought to be one of the strong possibilities.” But noted that the official animal “should be what captures the imagination of the children and makes them feel good — and the panda does that.”

Fast forward to May 10 when Christian Science Monitor contributor Steven Knipp explored the panda question, also noting that “the fact that the bamboo-loving, tree-dwelling creature is not native to the U.S. has not gone unnoticed.” Cropp is also quoted in Knipp’s piece: “The panda ought to be a strong possibility for the city’s representative animal. … The official animal chosen really should be what capture the imagination of the children and makes them feel good, and the panda does that.”


The Christian Science Monitor removed the piece from their archives “after the editors determined that the reporting did not meet Monitor standards.”

Recommended articles