Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Moynamama OP t1_ixfcft6 wrote

Shady dealings by the AP. Run an erroneous story that Russia bombed Poland based on a single unnamed US intelligence official, setting off nuclear worries, then shitcan the reporter but keep the editors who pulled the trigger on the story.

361

Agent_Angelo_Pappas t1_ixfflsc wrote

What were the editors supposed to do? For anonymous sources they can’t really ask who the source is without compromising anonymity, they have to rely on the integrity of the journalist to follow the AP’s rules.

Obviously this isn’t a perfect system, hence why when they find a case of a journalist not following rules the response is instant firing and making it public. They’re making sure he will never find gainful employment as a journalist again as a message to the rest of the wire staff that pulling this shit to try to get ahead of a story isn’t worth it.

107

Wiseduck5 t1_ixfp8qj wrote

>For anonymous sources they can’t really ask who the source is without compromising anonymity,

Incorrect. Editors normally know the identity of the anonymous sources.

118

enonmouse t1_ixfyath wrote

Not only that they usually corroborate information with secondary sources particularly when it is this portentous... this was a hatchet job.

61

Moynamama OP t1_ixfggs9 wrote

Apply some healthy skepticism and not run a story based on a single anonymous source, which is standard operating procedure for most media, including the AP. Also editors often vet a reporter’s sources while maintaining anonymity. Editors don’t just take a reporter’s word that their source is who he/she says the source is. The AP editors broke the organization’s rules in this case by publishing the unverified story then turned around and scapegoated the reporter. They are the ones charged with verifying before publishing.

53

Agent_Angelo_Pappas t1_ixfhu31 wrote

Healthy skepticism? Again, how do you figure this works when by definition you can’t ask for any identifying information regarding an anonymous source. By your logic no paper would ever run anything based on anonymous sources and all we would get is State fed information. That would be dumb.

The AP rule for anonymous sources requires multiple corroborating sources unless the source is an authoritative figure in government who provides so detailed of information there can be no doubt to authenticity. James LaPorta represented his source that way as a “senior US official” staking his credibility on it like every journalist does when they send something to the wire, and since he screwed up he now has no career

That system seems fair and is the system that made the AP into one of the world’s most relied on wire services, recognized as among the most robust sources of information. That’s the best way to manage journalists that people have come up with, hold them to task and fire them if they ever lie.

−15

DKBDV t1_ixfvb3v wrote

> That’s the best way to manage journalists that people have come up with, hold them to task and fire them if they ever lie.

Wait, but this journalist didn't lie. As far as he know he told the whole truth - his source was a senior US official (and in fact he had used this source for other stories previously), he accurately reported what this senior US official told him. He did not mislead or lie.

The editors decided to run with the story, but then when the source turned out to be wrong, decided to scapegoat the reporter instead of taking responsibility for their decision as well.

30

[deleted] t1_ixfj804 wrote

Snarky dramatic overgeneralized aggressive response. How about applying the human common sense standard; don't run a story with one anonymous source with nuclear war implications. The severity of a mistake must also factor into the editorial process

23

Moynamama OP t1_ixfznr6 wrote

Yes, the editors should have been more skeptical and waited to get confirmation from at least one other source. The AP did not follow its own rules and made a mistake.

LaPorta did not lie about the source. He got the information from a senior US official. That same source had been vetted by AP editors in the past. It’s not that they did not know who the source was. It’s that they agreed to go with what that one single person said without getting it confirmed by another source.

To quote the article: After further discussion, a second editor said she “would vote” for publishing an alert, adding, “I can’t imagine a U.S. intelligence official would be wrong on this.”

By your paraphrasing the AP editors failed to follow the bureau’s rule on anonymous sourcing because obviously the single source did not provide “so detailed of information there can be no doubt to authenticity.”

The reason LaPorta got canned is because he told his editors the source had been vetted by an AP senior manager. That was true. The source had been vetted by a senior manager for other stories. However, his editors took that to mean a senior manager had approved the sourcing for this story. That had not happened.

I believe the AP does an excellent job much of not most of the time. I’m not railing against its reporting or questioning its credibility overall.

However in this case, I think the organization should take a look at its editorial approval process and not try to throw all the blame on one reporter.

18

Eric_Partman t1_ixfghph wrote

Don’t post/okay stories with one anonymous source.

44

DKBDV t1_ixfv0jz wrote

So why's the reporter being the one fired here, not the editor who decided to publish the story with only one anonymous source?

5

Claystead t1_ixm87of wrote

Now, now, we wouldn’t want any $400k/year editors going down with the ship when you can just fire the $36k/year journalist instead.

1

MaverickTopGun t1_ixfw4jk wrote

>Don’t post/okay stories with one anonymous source.

"News is only news if multiple people witnessed it and are able to and willing to come forward with that information"

5

Eric_Partman t1_ixfzh88 wrote

Basically yes. Sources need some sort of verification.

4

TheLizardKing89 t1_ixfmf5e wrote

>What were the editors supposed to do? For anonymous sources they can’t really ask who the source is without compromising anonymity

I’m not a journalist, but isn’t it pretty common for a reporter to tell their editor who their sources are? When a reporter promises to protect a source’s anonymity, they mean from the government, not from their editor.

44

LeicaM6guy t1_ixgixjw wrote

Different publications have different standards and it can depend on a lot of things, but it largely boils down to how much trust the editor has in their reporter and what’s at stake for the source. When it comes to lives and conflict reporting though, you don’t fuck around.

6

DKBDV t1_ixfuy9l wrote

Did the journalist "not follow rules" though?
To me it seems like the journalist didn't break any rules, and was pretty forthright about both the source and the tip. Firing him seems like scapegoating.

12

UrbanGhost114 t1_ixfhkkq wrote

Abode by basic journalistic standards and not run a story that doesn't have 2 independent sourses.

−8

DKBDV t1_ixfvex2 wrote

Wait, but it's the editors' decision whether to run the story or not.

They knew perfectly well that the story had just the one source, ran the story anyway, then decided to fire the reporter instead of the people who made the decision to run the story.

9

UrbanGhost114 t1_ixfw1mz wrote

Yes, that's my point, they (the editor), as well as the author, could have not ran a story that didn't abide by basic journalistic standards, the author also has a choice to submit the story.

Don't know why answering what they could have done got me down voted, but here we are.

−3

milkboxshow t1_ixgl9ms wrote

That’s… just wrong.

Journalists have an obligation to independently verify news before reporting on it. Sensitive news that can inflame hostilities and trigger World War 3 and millions of deaths is absolutely paramount you get it right.

The journalist was rightly fired for posting clumsy information from his doctor’s appointment and not being crystal clear that he was sharing a LEAD worth someone else following up on, and not STORY he had personally verified. His language to his editors was super confusing on this.

But the editors themselves did not verify anything, or even check his source. In their rush to post an exclusive they did not once stop to think about the impact of their actions. The entire news org should honestly be restructured and whomever was responsible for setting and overseeing editorial process and integrity should be dismissed.

This isn’t a fucking joke article on who Kim Kardashian is hooking up with.

−8

pegothejerk t1_ixffpg4 wrote

They fired someone, that's good. I'm tired of organizations like police and political parties that do nothing when their members blatantly commit horrific crimes and/or abuses.

14

usrevenge t1_ixfg8pf wrote

Ap is one of the better news sources I doubt fox or most other media would fire journalist for the story.

18

DKBDV t1_ixfvhdi wrote

Nah, this is the same thing that all the organizations do - blame/fire the person lowest down on the chain, while the higher-ups skate free. Nothing laudable here, I think.

14

mosi_moose t1_ixfrner wrote

It’d be better if they fired the person responsible instead of a subordinate — like the editor that made the decision to run the story. Misplaced accountability is just scapegoating.

11

Moynamama OP t1_ixfgmuo wrote

I’m glad to see them taking action too. I just think the reporter is getting screwed when it’s the editors’ job to make sure the sourcing is legitimate before publishing.

−11

kilosurge t1_ixfky2y wrote

But it's the reporter's source. If they choose shitty sources, then that's on them. The editor has no say in that.

1

Moynamama OP t1_ixg1yjp wrote

The source wasn’t a bad source. It’s was a senior US official. That official had bad information. That’s why you need to hear it from multiple people before you publish.

The reporter reported what the US senior official told him about the bombing (it was Russia). The AP editors assessed what they knew and decided to go ahead and run with it.

It sounds like the reporter was pushing them to go with it, but they are the ones who said go. If they got pressured into publishing by the reporter, that’s even more damming in my opinion. It’s an editor’s job to soberly consider the story and decide when it is ready for publication.

Edit: Someone published the Slack conversation in here. The reporter wasn’t pushing. It was just piss poor communication between the reporter and editors.

10

allinthebananastand t1_ixfpnx2 wrote

Ok. So, how about we talk about how Many times the AP gets it right. How often they persevere to get the facts out, and not editorialize it. They fixed the problem, when they failed. It is still an organization ran by imperfect people. So, sometimes, they’re going to get it wrong. How many times have they gotten it right. It’s so fucked up, but so common, to completely dismiss all the good that is done, when a mistake has been made. AP is one of the few sources one can refer go to for news stories. They’re not going to get it right 100% of the time. Again, they fucked up, they’re fixing it. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. It sounds more like you’ve got an axe to grind here. WaPo is typically seen as an unbiased source as well. Let’s not take down one of the few neutral places we have left. :(

2

Moynamama OP t1_ixg03hv wrote

Not throwing the baby out with the bath water. If I didn’t respect the AP I wouldn’t bother caring about this issue. It’s not an attack to look at what happened and examine what is being done to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

5

AussieTerror t1_ixfd48l wrote

Editors? News Media is now just Trash to Website direct posting.

−9

Safe-River7357 t1_ixfknv7 wrote

Crazy cause half the media made erroneous claims about Russia based of unnamed intel officials from 2016-2020.

−16