Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Agent_Angelo_Pappas t1_ixfflsc wrote

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

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