"When Cheney was announced to the crowd, the booing began. I was there and heard that. When he threw poorly, the boos intensified. I was trying to make the point that he got more boos after the bad throw -- but did not mean to imply that's the only time he was booed. For my quick online story, I mistakenly left out the broader context, assuming people knew Cheney was a controversial figure. After hearing from online readers, I then added more context for my story in [Tuesday's] actual newspaper. But since Cheney's appearance was no longer the lede of my story [Tuesday] -- which dealt with fans angry that the Nats have no team owner yet -- I dealt with his boos only in one paragraph in the newspaper story."
So, in essence, it's the fault of the readership for not assuming that Cheney would get booed?