Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Agent_Angelo_Pappas t1_ixfhu31 wrote

Reply to comment by Moynamama in Associated Press reporter fired over erroneous story on Russian attack by Moynamama

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