If damage control is your standard operating procedure, we're not talking ethics, but lack of it. Doing evil until caught, and then apologizing, can be excused once, but not when it's a strategy.
I was taking a dig at the ambiguity of the word "damage."
"Damage control" can either mean "controlling the damage done to the organization" or "controlling the damage done to the public by the organization."
Anyways, I think it's wrong to characterize the WaPo as "evil" in this situation for following an editorial rulebook. There's no evidence that they published the first article with intent to apologize later - if there was, this case would be complicated significantly.
No, the term you're looking for is damage control.