AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process
1–10 of 181 posts
Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process
#2A cursory glance (which ironically is probably what created this dangerous misinformation) suggests to me that news agency haste to be first to announce something was the primary factor in this miscommunication.
I now wonder if pre-internet news was as prone to these kind of mistakes since it took so much longer to publish news (thereby giving sources more time to confirm things).
Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process
#3Frankly, this seems like an editorial mistake not a journalists mistake.
Unless he completely made up the information he received, or lied about the attribution in the internal slack chat, he should not have been fired for this. This was an editorial error.
In fact, the exact information he passed along was factually correct by one interpretation. The S-300 rockets were "Russian" in the sense that they were Russian manufacturing. They were not "Russian" in the sense that they were fired by Russian armed forces (to the best of our knowledge).
Really think the AP has tried to pin the blame on this one reporter incorrectly.
Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process
#4Frankly, this seems like an editorial mistake not a journalists mistake. Unless he completely made up the information he received, or lied about the attribution in the internal slack chat, he should not have been fired for this. This was an editorial error. In fact, the exact information he passed along was factually correct by one interpretation. The S-300 rockets were "Russian" in the sense that they were Russian m…
That seems likely, but you still don't let the reporter off the hook. "Technically correct by one interpretation" isn't the standard for journalistic sourcing. He needed another source or more context (just an identification of these as AA missiles would have been enough to kill the story) and didn't get one.
It was a messup on a few different axes, but it's started with bad journalism.
Whether or not the guy was fired as a scapegoat or to cover up someone else's mistake is, heh, not something we have reportable sourcing for.
Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process
#5A cursory glance (which ironically is probably what created this dangerous misinformation) suggests to me that news agency haste to be first to announce something was the primary factor in this miscommunication. I now wonder if pre-internet news was as prone to these kind of mistakes since it took so much longer to publish news (thereby giving sources more time to confirm things).
There's at least some truth to that. There was still a lot of time pressure over whether the presses should roll or not. But it wasn't a continuous process that strongly rewarded publishing this very second.
For a filmic example of the process of holding presses and then going with the story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBXuyRXNIHE&t=1s
Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process
#6Frankly, this seems like an editorial mistake not a journalists mistake. Unless he completely made up the information he received, or lied about the attribution in the internal slack chat, he should not have been fired for this. This was an editorial error. In fact, the exact information he passed along was factually correct by one interpretation. The S-300 rockets were "Russian" in the sense that they were Russian m…
That seems likely, but you still don't let the reporter off the hook. "Technically correct by one interpretation" isn't the standard for journalistic sourcing. He needed another source or more context (just an identification of these as AA missiles would have been enough to kill the story) and didn't get one. It was a messup on a few different axes, but it's started with bad journalism. Whether or not the guy was fir…
> just an identification of these as AA missiles would have been enough to kill the story
I understand why "Russia fires on Poland" is news.
Why is "Ukraine fires on Poland, blames Russia" not news?
Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process
#7A cursory glance (which ironically is probably what created this dangerous misinformation) suggests to me that news agency haste to be first to announce something was the primary factor in this miscommunication. I now wonder if pre-internet news was as prone to these kind of mistakes since it took so much longer to publish news (thereby giving sources more time to confirm things).
Actually the fact that it took longer to publish and distribute the paper, but it still had to be in everyone’s driveway before work, produced a major time crunch for publishers.
In 1948, for example, the Chicago Tribune assumed Truman would lose the election and published it as fact on the front page in order to make their print deadline.
Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process
#8Frankly, this seems like an editorial mistake not a journalists mistake. Unless he completely made up the information he received, or lied about the attribution in the internal slack chat, he should not have been fired for this. This was an editorial error. In fact, the exact information he passed along was factually correct by one interpretation. The S-300 rockets were "Russian" in the sense that they were Russian m…
That seems likely, but you still don't let the reporter off the hook. "Technically correct by one interpretation" isn't the standard for journalistic sourcing. He needed another source or more context (just an identification of these as AA missiles would have been enough to kill the story) and didn't get one. It was a messup on a few different axes, but it's started with bad journalism. Whether or not the guy was fir…
> . He needed another source or more context
To publish, maybe. He was at a doctors appointment, got a tip, and passed it to his boss. He didn't write the news alert. If they wanted more context, the other people on the chat should have found some.
Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems likely, but you still don't let the reporter off the hook. "Technically correct by one interpretation" isn't the standard for journalistic sourcing. He needed another source or more context (just an identification of these as AA missiles would have been enough to kill the story) and didn't get one. It was a messup on a few different axes, but it's started with bad journalism. Whether or not the guy was fir…
> just an identification of these as AA missiles would have been enough to kill the story I understand why "Russia fires on Poland" is news. Why is "Ukraine fires on Poland, blames Russia" not news?
> Why is "Ukraine fires on Poland, blames Russia" not news?
Because that's not what happened? That's spin. In fact Ukraine jumped on this story only once the AP published it. It's popular to attribute this to Ukrainian propaganda in some circles, but (heh, again getting to the actual subject at hand) that's not something you can report unless you can find evidence.
All the facts we know point to the Ukrainian government being just as fooled by the AP story as we were.
Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process
#10Frankly, this seems like an editorial mistake not a journalists mistake. Unless he completely made up the information he received, or lied about the attribution in the internal slack chat, he should not have been fired for this. This was an editorial error. In fact, the exact information he passed along was factually correct by one interpretation. The S-300 rockets were "Russian" in the sense that they were Russian m…
More likely this was akin to the WMD reports and Iraq. There's a conclusion and and information that supports it is fast tracked and not given due diligence. Then the retraction and correction is far more muted. This isn't a bug, it's a feature of modern media propaganda.