Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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

soneast t1_ixfj9f7 wrote

Guess he should have dug into the story just a little bit. Too worried about being first, rather than finding the facts.

168

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:

​

https://www.semafor.com/article/11/22/2022/ap-fired-a-reporter-after-a-dangerous-blunder-slack-messages-reveal-a-chaotic-process

284

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

171

drmcsinister t1_ixfu57c wrote

That's pretty fucked up. Hard to trust the AP if they are so backhanded in dealing with mistakes.

95

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.

−37

89141 t1_ixhem0y wrote

Bullshit! Go watch Fox News then if you don’t want journalism.

24

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.

4

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.

4

gizm770o t1_ixhw3dw wrote

What is the APs obvious bias?

2

bp92009 t1_ixjcvw4 wrote

Reality.

Which often has a liberal bias, as least to the modern Republican party.

3

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.

2

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.

2

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.

31

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.

60

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.

6

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

64

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.

−60

Kernel32Sanders t1_ixg49tt wrote

Lol that is the dumbest thing I'll read today.

11

[deleted] t1_ixfrevd wrote

[removed]

−84

Noisy_Toy t1_ixft0ok wrote

Wow, your comment history is a festering cesspool of misinformation, misogyny, and anti-semitism.

The complete troll hat trick.

50

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.

152

89141 t1_ixhee8c wrote

That’s not what the article stated nor are the defending the firing.

−3

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?

11

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.

4

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.

−8

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

6

gizm770o t1_ixhxld3 wrote

I think you’re reading wayyyy too much into it. They don’t say that at all. Again, entirely speculative.

−5

skillywilly56 t1_ixkdsg8 wrote

He is a former Marine, maybe got tired of him always eating their crayons?

2

BurstEDO t1_ixksh8q wrote

Just ask Rocky; marines will eat anything.

(In just 7 days...)

2

[deleted] t1_ixfrh2m wrote

I might be wrong but It seemed like every Outlet was running with this story though, it was on reddit's front page for 24 hours and everyone took it at face value in the comment section.

53

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.

72

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.

1

lucash7 t1_ixfnsu3 wrote

Ahuh. AP probably just made them the scapegoat. Figures.

19

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.

11

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. )

25

PerryNeeum t1_ixi7gnr wrote

Got to have standards. Respect

1

bonkly68 t1_ixlp21n wrote

That's window dressing. The higher-ups definitely vetted it.

1

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.

−2

xmronadaily t1_ixhbcfl wrote

Well-deserved for being a lying POS.

−3

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.

5

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.

−12

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

21

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.

11

[deleted] t1_ixg844h wrote

[removed]

−4

Ameisen t1_ixhs864 wrote

Weird how you replaced a word just so you could entirely change the meaning. Strawman much?

4

gazagda t1_ixftr5g wrote

Yes keep coving this shit up - very relieved Europe that can't do anything to Russia, and don't know what they would have to do if forced into that position

−13

gizm770o t1_ixhwhc0 wrote

What’s being covered up here?

3

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.

−2

tobsn t1_ixfj4z2 wrote

definitively should be fired.

anyone thinking a russian missile, right now, made it all the way across ukraine, undetected, and hit into a polish grain silo… is unfit for the job of reporting such events.

−15

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.

25

DKBDV t1_ixfw3lc wrote

Well, the blame's correctly ascribed, it's Russia's fault that any missiles are flying at all.

11

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.

3

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.

2