The above editor’s note was placed atop a piece by Howard Kurtz.The original version of his story included this quote from Pelosi:

I think you need to talk about how poorly they [the White House] do on message. They can’t see around corners; they anticipate nothing.

Pelosi never said that. How did it get in the piece? Here’s how a Daily Beast spokesman explained the error:

The article, Behind Obama’s Populist Makeover, included a comment erroneously attributed to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, criticizing the administration’s political messaging. The writer misread notes of an interview conducted by a colleague. The error has been corrected, and we’ve apologized to Nancy Pelosi’s office.

Yeah, kind of vague. Much like the editor’s note. Here’s a better explanation from Politico:

In fact, Kurtz never interviewed Pelosi for the story, but was the lead writer on a story pulling together reporting from a group of reporters that included Lois Romano, who had interviewed Pelosi earlier for a profile that ran in Newsweek/The Daily Beast on September 25th. During that interview, Pelosi said some things that fit the theme of today’s story – about Obama’s return to populism – and so Romano turned over some of her unused quotes to Kurtz for his piece.

Somewhere in the hand-off, however, there was a miscommunication, according to several Newsweek sources. Notes that framed the interview were misinterpreted as part of the transcript.

While the story itself lists the contributing reporters at the bottom and does not imply that Kurtz talked to Pelosi, the deck head – presumably written by another editor – makes it seem like Kurtz interviewed Pelosi, further compounding the confusion.

This is the second notable lapse under Kurtz’s byline this year. In January he (reluctantly) admitted that he confused Rep. Darrell Issa’s spokesman, Kurt Bardella, for Issa during an interview.

Update Oct. 3, 2011: Erik Wemple’s post about the mistake pointed me to this tweeted correction from Kurtz:

Wemple makes the valid point that, aside from the above tweet, the journalists involved in this incident haven’t offered any kind of explanation. All we got was a comment from a spokesperson. That’s not the right kind of accountability.

Writes Wemple:

Time for some collegialism at the Daily Beast. Whoever bears the blame for the misattribution should come forth and accept the foul, in the manner of a basketball player who hacks another and raises a hand to acknowledge the mistake. The closest we have to that scenario right now is a Kurtz tweet saying, in part, “We regret the error.” That leaves a whole crew of Beastians taking the fall for this problem. Not fair.

Another point here: Kurtz, Solomon, Stone, Clift, Romano — how many decades of journo experience do those people have among them? When their collective opus falls into disrepute, though, who’s answering for it? Andrew Kirk. Andrew Kirk? I am sure he’s an amazing Director of Public Relations for Newsweek & The Daily Beast. He responded swiftly to my request for the official line on this incident. Yet when journalistic veterans commit an error, journalistic veterans should account for that error. They’re paid enough to cram that task into their job descriptions. Speak up.

It was difficult enough that the Vancouver Canucks were grieving their former player Rick Rypien, who died suddenly on Monday at 27 after a history of depression. Imagine their feelings when they saw a quote from the Toronto Star’s obit on Rypien that seemed to show GM Mike Gillis calling Rypien “crazy.”

— via “Canucks enraged by Toronto Star gaffe,” a report from the Globe and Mail.

Here’s the full apology:

An Aug. 16 article about the death of former Vancouver Canuck Rick Rypien misquoted Canucks general manager Mike Gillis as having referred to Rypien as “crazy” in an interview with the Vancouver Sun last November when Rypien took a personal leave from the Canucks. In fact, Gillis never said that. What he said in an interview with Vancouver Sun columnist Iain MacIntyre was: “When you come to know somebody and realize they’re a really good person, who has their heart in the right place and wants to do the right thing not only for themselves but for others, you have to support them. You don’t only support them when they’re at the top of their game and doing everything you want. You support them when they’re not feeling good about things or have other issues they have to deal with.” The Star apologizes for this error.

Thanks, K!