Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process

semafor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 181 posts

Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process

#91

Post by SoftTalker »

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #52

> LaPorta did not exactly claim that Nixon had approved the source in this case, but his words were interpreted by the editors to mean that he did. I think that's a reasonable read. That's what I took away from it initially. He said an official source, which had been vetted, said a thing. The fact that he didn't make it clear that this source had not been vetted for this particular report is negligent at best.

Yes, either very poor wording or deliberately trying to imply something that he knew wasn't actually the case while still having plausible deniability.

Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process

#92

Post by pessimizer »

HWR_14 wrote: post #60
pessimizer wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Russia launching on Poland could have been intentional. If we assume that Russia is dying to give NATO an excuse to escalate, i.e. that they're insane and want to destroy the world.

If you replace "Russia" with "Putin" it's possible that he would rather end the world than lose in Ukraine. And it's possible that he would need to generate the escalation to justify ordering the ICBMs to fly, otherwise the commanders might decline.

There's a celebrity Putin created by propaganda who is a rabid foaming maniac, and there's the real Putin, who hasn't ever seemed particularly irrational, or even overly adventurous. There's also a war with Russia, a whole country, that a lot of people have sought to reduce to Putin, but as adults we don't have to pretend that Russia is an appendage to a single great man's will.

Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process

#93

Post by [deleted] »

HillRat wrote: post #85
IncRnd wrote: post #22

The people in that Slack thread, except for the reporter James LaPorta, exhibited an incredible amount of willful ignorance that bordered on stupidity. The original statement was vague and did not name a source. It held the pretense of a source by saying an unnamed senior American intelligence official was in some capacity vetted by Ron Nixon. It's not clear whether the person was vetted as an official, if his words…

LaPorta's a fine reporter who absolutely doesn't deserve to be scapegoated for what was primarily an editorial error in judgment (also, Nixon's an excellent national security reporter with deep sources). The initial few hours after the explosion were chaotic; Poland did hold a national security committee (BBN) meeting and talked about triggering an Article 4 consultation, both of which were consonant with a belief th…

[deleted]

Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process

#94

Post by mc32 »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #90
mc32 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people often say when reporting on wars: Chinese AK-47s killed 20 civilians in Afghanistan, or do they say 10 Isis fighters fired AK-47s killing twenty civilians in Kabul? Oh, Twenty American guided missiles killed Houthi fighters —but but they were fired by Saudi Arabian forces from Saudi Arabia. Or French Exocet missiles killed blah blah blah in blah blah blah (without further context?) You want to know who in h…

Now that you mention it though this should be stated every time. Certainly not instead of, but in addition yes.

It's academic yes, but in a murder investigation you want to know who had the gun and pulled the trigger not so much what make it was. For evidentiary purposes, yes, you want to know what exact gun it was and who manufactured it, but that's not at all the point of a murder trial. you want to know who the perp was.

Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process

#95

Post by giraffe_lady »

mc32 wrote: post #94
giraffe_lady wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that you mention it though this should be stated every time. Certainly not instead of, but in addition yes.

It's academic yes, but in a murder investigation you want to know who had the gun and pulled the trigger not so much what make it was. For evidentiary purposes, yes, you want to know what exact gun it was and who manufactured it, but that's not at all the point of a murder trial. you want to know who the perp was.

War weapons are not really like murder weapons in this sense. If you want to stick with that metaphor, the country of manufacture here is more like the friend who bought the gun for the murderer. That sort of relationship is very relevant in a trial.

Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process

#96

Post by harry8 »

I have doubts about whether a source who has supplied misinformation should continue to be given anonymity. Is this unfashionable?

Seems that maybe should a case arise where a government official lies in a way that is consistent with getting the public to support military action, they are not a "source" and deserve no protection whatsoever. They should go from feeding the false story to being the true story in short order. Is that nuts? What am I missing? These kinds of liars will avoid speaking to your publication in the future and that's a bad thing? Something more?

Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process

#97

Post by mc32 »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #95
mc32 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's academic yes, but in a murder investigation you want to know who had the gun and pulled the trigger not so much what make it was. For evidentiary purposes, yes, you want to know what exact gun it was and who manufactured it, but that's not at all the point of a murder trial. you want to know who the perp was.

War weapons are not really like murder weapons in this sense. If you want to stick with that metaphor, the country of manufacture here is more like the friend who bought the gun for the murderer. That sort of relationship is very relevant in a trial.

I don't recall reporters customarily mentioning the country of origin/manufacture of weaponry unless it was germane to the discussion.

When they report ISIS or Taliban killing people they might mention it was with AK-47s but they don't mention where they were manufactured. They may say things like The Taliban are buying AK-47s from China which they then issue to their members.

If this reporter wanted to be correct, they likely want to say Soviet missile fired by Ukraine, given the age of the missile fired, it was likely of vintage manufacture.

Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process

#98

Post by function_seven »

harry8 wrote: post #96

I have doubts about whether a source who has supplied misinformation should continue to be given anonymity. Is this unfashionable? Seems that maybe should a case arise where a government official lies in a way that is consistent with getting the public to support military action, they are not a "source" and deserve no protection whatsoever. They should go from feeding the false story to being the true story in short…

You're not nuts, but the side-effects of this would destroy the sourcing for all other news.

Imagine you work at $INTEL_AGENCY, and you truly believe that a missile was fired from Russia. That info came across your desk from two separate analysts or trusted sources or whatever. You leak this to a reporter. Then it turns out that your info was wrong and the reporter outs you as the source.

Will anyone ever be a source under these circumstances? Even if they're acting in good faith? No. Not worth he risk of destroying your career or even your freedom.

If I'm a reporter, I will put this name in my own "Brady" list of untrustworthy sources, but I won't make all future sources wary of me by outing them.

Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process

#99

Post by ncallaway »

askl56 wrote: post #83
ncallaway wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By that interpretation both sides of war in ukraine are russian Well, no, I made a pretty clear distinction about what context we were using "Russian" to refer to. By that interpretation both sides of the war in Ukraine use Russian manufactured weapons. Which isn't a crazy thing to suggest, since it's manifestly true. It seems very likely to me that the journalist meant "Russian-fired rocket". But is that what thei…

So if a Boeing plane is shot down in Iran, it would make sense to say "Iranians shoot down American plane"? During the Iran/Iraq war would have made sense to say "American missiles hit American planes in Iraq"?

Would it make sense for the AP to report that? No, of course not.

Could it make sense for someone to communicate that idea? Sure, absolutely.

Does it make sense to say the sentence you wrote? It really depends on who is saying what, and in which context!

My main point was: this looks like it was a misunderstanding (which, unless the source was fabricated, or just lying to the journalist, it was). I was presenting a hypothetical context in which that misunderstanding could arise.

Re: AP fired reporter after dangerous blunder – Slack chats reveal chaotic process

#100

Post by harry8 »

function_seven wrote: post #98
harry8 wrote: post #96

I have doubts about whether a source who has supplied misinformation should continue to be given anonymity. Is this unfashionable? Seems that maybe should a case arise where a government official lies in a way that is consistent with getting the public to support military action, they are not a "source" and deserve no protection whatsoever. They should go from feeding the false story to being the true story in short…

You're not nuts, but the side-effects of this would destroy the sourcing for all other news. Imagine you work at $INTEL_AGENCY, and you truly believe that a missile was fired from Russia. That info came across your desk from two separate analysts or trusted sources or whatever. You leak this to a reporter. Then it turns out that your info was wrong and the reporter outs you as the source. Will anyone ever be a source…

At what point is it no longer tenable to say it was an honest mistake? What did the source have to gain from leaking the story? How do you avoid being used by some other source to plant a false story in the future? How do you avoid this source picking someone else to plant their next one?

Is there really no way to balance "destroy all sourcing for other news" with "not be a patsy for WMD style propaganda?"

Post reply on HN