Comments
AussieTerror t1_ixfd48l wrote
Editors? News Media is now just Trash to Website direct posting.
[deleted] t1_ixfd999 wrote
[deleted]
onlycodeposts t1_ixfdbc4 wrote
I support Ukraine's right to exist. At the same time I understand false propaganda against Russia exists.
I didn't believe Iraq killed 500 babies in Kuwait, but I still supported the action against Iraq.
The AP did the right thing. Russia is in the wrong, but there is no reason to amplify false reports.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Eric_Partman t1_ixfghph wrote
Don’t post/okay stories with one anonymous source.
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.
UrbanGhost114 t1_ixfhkkq wrote
Abode by basic journalistic standards and not run a story that doesn't have 2 independent sourses.
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.
mynextthroway t1_ixfiaso wrote
This isn't to amplify the false reports against Russia. This is to make reporters aware of the consequences of actual false news (as opposed to "I don't like that." false news. )
DodgyQuilter t1_ixfimam wrote
One USA 'intelligence' official brings the world to the edge of Armageddon. The reporter passed on that leaked information but one wannabe yank spy started it.
Not_Insightful t1_ixfitia wrote
But it’s not lmao
[deleted] t1_ixfitmc wrote
Funny that needs to be explained
[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
[deleted] t1_ixfja1y wrote
[deleted] t1_ixfjcmy wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixfjg50 wrote
[deleted]
ThePurplePanzy t1_ixfjmd9 wrote
So, some of the most important stories?
Eric_Partman t1_ixfjtt1 wrote
Yes, this one was very “important”.
[deleted] t1_ixfk6rv wrote
Safe-River7357 t1_ixfknv7 wrote
Crazy cause half the media made erroneous claims about Russia based of unnamed intel officials from 2016-2020.
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_ixfmxyo wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixfn3hi wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixfns6j wrote
[removed]
lost-but-loving-it t1_ixfo2v2 wrote
Russia is still the problem here, super weird to imply otherwise
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.
[deleted] t1_ixfp9v7 wrote
[removed]
go_half_the_way t1_ixfpact wrote
The important stories are the ones you need to get right.
[deleted] t1_ixfpg4n wrote
[removed]
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. :(
GD_American t1_ixfpwk3 wrote
Jim LaPorta was literally at the doctor, passed along a tip in the Slack channel, when asked on whether he thought they should publish said "above my pay grade", then editor Zeina Karam made the decision to publish.
LaPorta fired, Karam still employed. Check the messages yourself:
​
Peanut_007 t1_ixfqpsm wrote
Russia is staging missiles out of Belarus and the Black Sea to target stuff in Western Ukraine. The issue here isn't that the Russians couldn't have hit into Poland but that they jumped the gun on ascribing blame in what's already an insanely tense scenario.
[deleted] t1_ixfrevd wrote
[removed]
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.
[deleted] t1_ixfskq8 wrote
Noisy_Toy t1_ixft0ok wrote
Wow, your comment history is a festering cesspool of misinformation, misogyny, and anti-semitism.
The complete troll hat trick.
[deleted] t1_ixftlr3 wrote
[removed]
drmcsinister t1_ixfu57c wrote
That's pretty fucked up. Hard to trust the AP if they are so backhanded in dealing with mistakes.
yell-loud t1_ixfu6l9 wrote
Well that doesn’t seem right at all. He passed on a tip and said he knew nothing further. Dude got scapegoated hard
Cactuszach t1_ixfuj2w wrote
Thats what happens. Most news sites just republish AP news stories. Check a random story from your favorite news site right now. They credit the original reporting, and most likely it’s from the AP.
[deleted] t1_ixfumb4 wrote
Ah that would make sense then.
[deleted] t1_ixfuv9e wrote
tr3v1n t1_ixfuwkz wrote
> One USA 'intelligence' official brings the world to the edge of Armageddon.
None of the nations were acting on the information from the reporting. Instead they were investigating the incident themselves, as they had the actual capability to figure it out for themselves. We are at the edge of Armageddon because one nuclear nation decided it could annex other sovereign nations when it wants to and not because of some poor reporting.
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.
Irregularblob t1_ixfuyst wrote
Did you even read it dude. Do you have a brain?
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?
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.
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.
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.
DKBDV t1_ixfvmcb wrote
Nah, this wasn't really bringing the world any closer to war. NATO has their own sources, they don't rely on the AP to tell them what's going on in the war lol
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.
DKBDV t1_ixfw1z9 wrote
Um, even though this was not fired by russia, it actually is in the flight path of missiles that hit Ukraine from Belarus. This would be a missile that landed short of its target, not one that flew all across Ukraine and went too far for some reason.
DKBDV t1_ixfw3lc wrote
Well, the blame's correctly ascribed, it's Russia's fault that any missiles are flying at all.
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"
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.
Eric_Partman t1_ixfzh88 wrote
Basically yes. Sources need some sort of verification.
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_ixg0tlq wrote
[removed]
St1834 t1_ixg1vyr wrote
The conversation isn't about whether LaPorta's tip is correct, it's about whether LaPorta's correct tip was enough to publish based off of. It assumed LaPorta was correct because he shouldn't have brought in a tip if he hadn't verified it properly according to AP's standards first. And like the article said, AP found he hadn't and implied this wasn't the first time.
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.
Tashre t1_ixg25ra wrote
> The Associated Press said the incident was part of a pattern of behavior. In a statement, spokesperson Lauren Easton said that the publication is continuing to review the incident. But she implied that the decision to fire LaPorta was not based just on last week’s story, though she did not clarify what those incidents were.
> “When our standards are violated, we must take the steps necessary to protect the integrity of the news report. We do not make these decisions lightly, nor are they based on isolated incidents,” she said.
If their defense is that this reporter has some kind of history of inaccuracy, then that would make it even more important for the editor(s) to triple and quadruple check this kind of report.
GD_American t1_ixg272d wrote
The confusion came from LaPorta saying that the source had been previously vetted and the editors assuming he was saying the tip had been vetted. So while he's not 100% blameless, come on. He was passing a tip in his off time. The editors had the responsibility to verify.
[deleted] t1_ixg2evu wrote
[deleted]
St1834 t1_ixg2pac wrote
He is the reporter. He has the responsibility to verify. In some cases, the reporter is the only one who knows the anonymous source. They assumed the tip was properly vetted because it shouldn't have been brought to them otherwise. If he was too busy, he should have passed it off to another trusted reporter, not sent it up the chain with an unclear status. And then, when asked if this was enough to publish based on, he should have said "NO because this doesn't meet AP's reporting guidelines. Sorry if I wasn't clear." not "not my job".
And, again, AP's statement implied this wasn't an isolated incident. Blame is 100% on him, this was a totally half-assed reporting job.
Kernel32Sanders t1_ixg49tt wrote
Lol that is the dumbest thing I'll read today.
GD_American t1_ixg4i38 wrote
If you literally read the link you can see, he wasn't the reporter. He literally passed along a tip. It's a lead- the kind professionals share with each other all the time. He didn't submit this as a story, he didn't push to publish (and in fact explicitly tossed that decision to editors), he literally said "hey heard this from a guy, who another guy we know trusts, do with it what you will, I'm at the doctor".
Yet you keep pointing to implied smears from the AP against the guy they just scapegoated, and ignore actual screenshots of the conversation in question
St1834 t1_ixg52sv wrote
>he wasn't the reporter. He literally passed along a tip.
So, that means he was the reporter. Reporters report tips. If he wasn't busy, he would have written the story too. That's what they were asking him to do.
>he didn't push to publish (and in fact explicitly tossed that decision to editors)
Giving them a tip that he knew or should have known didn't meet AP reporting standards and then not telling them not to publish based on that.
>he literally said "hey heard this from a guy, who another guy we know trusts
He didn't. If he did, they would have said "oh, this is wrong, go back and do it the right way". He took a tip up the chain, written in an unclear way, that he should have known didn't meet reporting standards, and didn't make clear that it didn't meet reporting standards, even when asked if it should be reported.
>Yet you keep pointing to implied smears from the AP against the guy they just scapegoated, and ignore actual screenshots of the conversation in question
No, I'm pointing out what's going on in the conversation and then also pointing out that the AP said this wasn't an isolated incident.
[deleted] t1_ixg844h wrote
[removed]
Peanut_007 t1_ixg8rvw wrote
Oh for sure, Russia is still ultimately to blame for both the war in general and their own reckless shooting near the border making spillover inevitable eventually. There wouldn't be any air defense missiles landing in Polish fields if they didn't need to be fired to begin with.
[deleted] t1_ixgc8jd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixgdd3d wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ixgddni wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ixgdxfw wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ixgdyzk wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ixgfqkt wrote
[deleted]
St1834 t1_ixgg8sg wrote
I'd love to hear your opinion if you can address the comment
[deleted] t1_ixggznv wrote
[deleted] t1_ixgh94t wrote
[removed]
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.
[deleted] t1_ixgjodz wrote
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.
[deleted] t1_ixgnfdr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixgp7m6 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixh09nf wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixh0hk0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixh0vhj wrote
[removed]
switchit t1_ixh30rb wrote
AP or Reuters
[deleted] t1_ixh5s58 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixh86xd wrote
[deleted]
MyBallsAreOnFir3 t1_ixh8qsn wrote
People have been putting way too much trust in outlets like AP and Reuters. Turns out that the more impartial and trustworthy a news source claims to be and the more alert we should be. It's easy to see the bias of obviously biased news outlets, much harder to see it when it's this subtle and hidden.
xmronadaily t1_ixhbcfl wrote
Well-deserved for being a lying POS.
[deleted] t1_ixhd0mt wrote
[removed]
89141 t1_ixhee8c wrote
That’s not what the article stated nor are the defending the firing.
89141 t1_ixhem0y wrote
Bullshit! Go watch Fox News then if you don’t want journalism.
[deleted] t1_ixhl7os wrote
[removed]
StringOfSpaghetti t1_ixhnkel wrote
"nor are they based on isolated incidents"
So what do you believe the above is saying then, if not that this is not the first time this reporter has missed on facts, verification or some other background check of reliability of content produced?
[deleted] t1_ixhpglv wrote
[removed]
Ameisen t1_ixhs864 wrote
Weird how you replaced a word just so you could entirely change the meaning. Strawman much?
gibubba t1_ixhump3 wrote
Yeah the inherent difference of a wire service and a news service. AP is supposed to say “this happened” or “this person said this”. It’s an unbiased factual statement, other commentary and supposed analysis are done by news organizations.
Rikey_Doodle t1_ixhvlgh wrote
Don't worry, they do.
gizm770o t1_ixhvy9k wrote
It’s impossible to say. Hell, maybe the guy is an absolute asshole in the workplace and was on probation for inappropriate behavior. It’s all entirely speculative.
gizm770o t1_ixhw3dw wrote
What is the APs obvious bias?
Chance_Bluebird_5788 t1_ixhwfl6 wrote
I think you're reading too much into this, it seems clear they're talking about a pattern of behavior related to his reporting
gizm770o t1_ixhwhc0 wrote
What’s being covered up here?
gizm770o t1_ixhwnsr wrote
He didn’t lie, at all. He accurately passed along a tip from a known source who had been reliable in the past. The source was wrong. That doesn’t mean the reporter lied.
gizm770o t1_ixhxld3 wrote
I think you’re reading wayyyy too much into it. They don’t say that at all. Again, entirely speculative.
Michiganderanian t1_ixi71or wrote
The media has made a habit of publishing articles based on "anonymous sources" and "people close to the situation" or "familiar with the president's thoughts" etc etc. It's the number one indicator that a news article can be ignored.
PerryNeeum t1_ixi7gnr wrote
Got to have standards. Respect
C-H-U-D t1_ixi953a wrote
The difference between “reputable” sources is that they at least make attempts at correcting mistakes.
Fox News, Newsmax, etc? They just don’t mention the mistake the next day like it never happened.
[deleted] t1_ixi98wh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixi9ebe wrote
[removed]
abyerdo t1_ixibk8d wrote
i dont think you understand how journalism works.
Barkasia t1_ixicy0i wrote
If the AP is biased then quite literally everyone is, and bias is no longer a relevant factor outside of the severity of said bias - in which case the AP still come out ahead of the pack.
bp92009 t1_ixjcvw4 wrote
Reality.
Which often has a liberal bias, as least to the modern Republican party.
[deleted] t1_ixjetyp wrote
gazagda t1_ixjoq4a wrote
The fact that an attack on Poland would not yield any repercussions whatsoever from NATO or UN because they are scared of Russia's nuclear capabilities. They would do anything to avoid directly confronting russia.This attack would have been a direct calling for NATO to jump in........but they don't want to. So better off make it look like an unintentially mistake on Ukraine, than blame mother Russia and have no excuse, but to jump in.
[deleted] t1_ixjvkrf wrote
[removed]
skillywilly56 t1_ixkdsg8 wrote
He is a former Marine, maybe got tired of him always eating their crayons?
skillywilly56 t1_ixkfnay wrote
This is what it is referring to: “LaPorta also told his editors that a senior manager had already vetted the source of LaPorta’s tip — leaving the impression that the story’s sourcing had been approved. While that editor had signed off on previous stories using LaPorta’s source, that editor had not weighed in on the missile story.”
He told them an editor had signed off who hadn’t, the editorial board made a decision based on him telling them it had already been vetted.
So instead of confirming from multiple sources they decided to believe his lie so they could get the story out, instead of verifying.
He is most likely a scape goat for their bad decision making because in their excitement of being able to be the first to report on the beginning of the third world war, they misconstrued something he said or something he wrote as if it was Gospel and pulled the trigger so they could be “first” which is of course “his fault” not theirs for letting it through. The editors screwed the pooch and now need someone to blame for not doing their jobs properly.
BurstEDO t1_ixksh8q wrote
Just ask Rocky; marines will eat anything.
(In just 7 days...)
[deleted] t1_ixl20kb wrote
[removed]
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.
Buckaru t1_ixqcbi9 wrote
... and one long night.
Omnipotent48 t1_ixullgj wrote
I don't know why you got downvoted for demonstrating basic critical thinking. We should always be skeptical of our news sources, especially if we haven't clocked their biases yet.
MyBallsAreOnFir3 t1_ixuw40g wrote
> for demonstrating basic critical thinking
Reddit encourages conformity. Which is why people use words like "circlejerk" and "hivemind" to describe it. Being critical and having your own opinion if highly discouraged here.
[deleted] t1_ixfcad9 wrote
[removed]