Thanks to Dean's World for finding this.
Is it any surprise, really? I've noticed the press handling things this way for some time: First, put out a story that is mostly false by using some legitimate source's name without really revealing what that source said. Let the story (that reinforces the press's prejudices) fester for awhile. Finally, to maintian their own legitimacy, quietly leak the real story. That way, editors can tell Tim Russert or Marvin Kalb, "We published the entirety of the commission's finding. People just found the [insert false story here] to be more interesting than the other findings."