Tapscott Cancels Meeting; Asking Q’s Like Pulling Teeth

Yesterday we wrote about what had to be a really painfully awkward CPAC panel in which Washington Examiner‘s Mark Tapscott sat alongside George Archibald, his old TWT colleague that wrote about him being involved in a male prostitution sex ring in the late 80s. At the time, he denied it.

Tapscott declined to comment for FishbowlDC on Monday, but instead made a big point of inviting this writer over to the paper for a meeting. He asked, wouldn’t I prefer that to a “mere” answer? Sure, I would, I told him, adding that I preferred even a “mere” answer to no answer. Only today when finalizing plans (or so I thought), Tapscott wrote an email with the subject line, “On second thought…” and added, “..I’m not going to comment except to say George’s book has multiple inaccuracies in it, I asked him to correct them, and he declined.”

Tapscott wouldn’t say why he canceled the meeting that he initiated. He also wouldn’t initially respond when asked the simple questions of “Why are you canceling the meeting?” and “When did you ask George to do this?” Instead, he sent the above quote three times.

Finally, finally, finally, finally, he wrote: “I only learned of his book about three weeks ago. Neither he nor his publisher ever talked to me pre-publication for fact-checking purposes. I asked him after the panel if he would correct the inaccuracies and he said to send him “a punchlist.” On Saturday, I sent him the same list I’d read at the panel. He said no on Sunday.”

Thanks Tapscott.

Archibald did not return an email request for comment.