4 ms·

Just listened to most of this earlier. I don't quite get it. IIRC, the original series did treat Chaudhry as dubious, but maybe partially truthful . He was cau

Just listened to most of this earlier. I don't quite get it. IIRC, the original series did treat Chaudhry as dubious, but maybe partially truthful . He was caught on a timeline lie, confronted by the journalist, he adjusted his timeline... Also, the whole series was constructed somewhat naively. It follows the journalist's investigations sequentially. The "story" follows leads and narratives that do or don't turn out to be true. You're following an investigation in progress. In that frame, this is just further evidence as the story continues. Caliphate just isn't framed as a traditional print "feature" where the journalist weighs everything in advance and only references fact-checked reliable evidence once they're done. I actually felt that caliphate did a better-than-most job at communicating shades of certainty. I wish the NYT did more of this. Journalistic standards are good tools, but they do not (should not, IMO) just sort everything into "true" or "unverified" piles and . Uncertainty about truth is inevitable. Communicate this well, honestly, and we'll all be better informed. This felt like way more than a retraction. Maybe they're using it as a "teaching moment" about how journalism works. I don't love it though. I can think of much better targets for NYT mea culpa or soul search. Caliphate is not a low watermark for journalism in any way. Maybe I'm missing something. If they (or any major paper) is feeling reflective, why not reflect on more systemic questions. How about double confirmed rumours from anonymous sources? Two sources, even if both remain nameless and have a personal interest in leaking to the press is considered fine.. I believe. This is common in political reporting. Stuff gets leaked. Journalists get confirmation from another insider.. maybe two. That can be printed. If it turns out to be a fallacious rumour, they still "met standards." Maybe they print a retraction, but no one did anything wrong. Meanwhile, this is the cause of many untruths getting published each year.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> He was caught on a timeline lie, confronted by the journalist, he adjusted his timeline The fact that they kept going after this (and didn't investigate further) is when you start having serious issues. You can see her attacking the Canadian police once it starts coming to light more and more that he was lying - she was attached to the story (and the fame) and didn't want to hear otherwise. [0] I am glad that the NYT retracted it, this was a good move, but I think this ought to be career-ending for her. [0]: https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1309620500176556032 https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1309620500176556032
- ghaff 6y ago
  Just by it happening, it's already career-limiting. I'm not sure every even serious screw up needs to result in a firing squad. That said, this is certainly in the category of things that can certainly end up that way at a major news org. See also Rathergate.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > Just by it happening, it's already career-limiting Oh absolutely - and I don't think she shouldn't necessarily be a journalist/storyteller anymore (clearly has somewhat of a knack for it) but not at a NYT/Wapo/WSJ.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      For all the heat those pubs get, my personal experience with them is that they're pretty meticulous with their reporting. (Which of course doesn't mean they don't sometimes miss the bigger picture even if their facts as reported are correct.) I had a total nothingburger quote in the WSJ a bit back and the whole process took 2 phone discussions, some back and forth messaging, and a fact check on email (presumably to put on record). For something that was completely banal.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Maybe I came off as more definitive than I intended. I agree with the retraction. It was required, but it's really more of a follow-on than a retraction. An apology to Canadian police is more necessary, probably. That's a no-fault too though, in my estimation. They had to keep quiet while investigating, and temporarily absorb criticism. That's a hazard of the job though. I see nothing wrong with this tweet, never mind "career-ending." "1. Big news out of Canada: Abu Huzayfah has been arrested on a terrorist “hoax” charge. The narrative tension of our podcast “Caliphate” is the question of whether his account is true. In Chapter 6 we explain the conflicting strands of his story, and what we can and can’t confirm" Shades of uncertainty. This is honest journalism. Whether or not she felt overconfident in any given detail or narrative, the we got to hear the account, suspicions, reasons to dismiss or believe the source (chaudhry). I don't think anyone reasonably concludes that his account is mostly honest or accurate, just that it may contain truth. He literally gets outed and confronted about being a liar. I am not a journalist. I can tell from that podcast that there are reasons for the strong reaction that look different from a journalistic perspective and a layman's one. I think the difference (to me) is frame. If in episode 3, she totally believes his account and by episode 6 she's dubious... that's the nature of doing investigative journalism as a temporal series.
tabbott 6y ago
Yeah, this was my reaction as well. The reason I found Caliphate interesting was not the details of Chaudhry's story, which I experienced as were portrayed as dubious and in need of verification throughout; I certainly finished the podcast feeling uncertain whether Chaudhry had actually done any of the things he claimed. Instead, the reason I've recommended this podcast to friends is that it spends most of its time on a fascinating exploration of the journalistic process. How does reporter verify claims made by people about events in a war zone? The people you interview have a reason to lie to you, sneaking across borders doesn't generate passport stamps, and reliable records are hard to come by. This latest news feels like an interesting addendum to all that; I'd have expected any other podcast publisher to do an additional episode or two covering the new evidence and grappling with what that changes about the conclusions one can draw (certainly Serial has done a number of updates on new evidence about its past stories). That said, my sense is that the NYT is taking this extreme action in part because they in retrospect are unhappy with the fact-checking process for the podcast, and I could see that sort of concern motivating this type of retraction/disowning despite all the uncertainty the podcast itself presented.
taway21 6y ago
>> Also, the whole series was constructed somewhat naively. I would use the word naively if it weren't journalist Rukmini Callimachi, who has created her entire career on the basis of secret terrorism in the Muslim community. At this point, that is her entire narrative and she finds anything to support it and ignores whatever doesnt support this specific narrative. Interestingly, he never covers similar things in other religious communities and focuses only on Muslims. She is this generation's Daniel Pipes. Her association with the NYT is also shameful, because she is more Fox News quality w/r/t balance
- dalbasal 6y ago
  I don't mean "naively" in the "the author is neutral" sense. I mean that it is not framed like an encyclopedia or conventional investigative journalism print. It is framed as the story of the investigation. It isn't "my conclusions after investigating this for 2 years." This frames has a lot of room for shades of uncertainty than conventional ones. In that sense, this is actually a better Meanwhile, I don't think she has any obligation to investigate terrorism in other religious communities at all. The editor might have an obligation similar to do that, depending on newsworthiness. But I don't see how it applies here anyway. Once ISIS/L established territory in Syria they became the most newsworthy topic of the decade. Ot's normal that careers are made on the biggest story of a decade. I'm not saying she has no biases. Journalists have biases. Political biases, biases to certain archetypal narratives, the importance or truth of their own story, etc. But, moreso than most, Caliphate did portray a detail rich picture. You can make your own judgements with facts she provides, even if they are different to hers. That's honest journalism. >>Her association with the NYT is also shameful, because she is more Fox News quality w/r/t balance I guess this is the reason I wrote the comment originally. It's disingenuous to portray this as a low watermark for NYT (or most other big newsorgs). There are many worse offences. Since you are comparing to fox news and balance, I assume you are comparing to "opinion reporting," and such. If we include that, then half the ship is under water. Opinion writing is outside of the journalistic standards allegedly violated here. But by layman standards, Callimachi is far more honest and balanced than any opinion at NYT... and obviously cable news stuff.
  - 6y ago

whimsicalism 6y ago

> He was caught on a timeline lie, confronted by the journalist, he adjusted his timeline The fact that they kept going after this (and didn't investigate further) is when you start having serious issues. You can see her attacking the Canadian police once it starts coming to light more and more that he was lying - she was attached to the story (and the fame) and didn't want to hear otherwise. [0] I am glad that the NYT retracted it, this was a good move, but I think this ought to be career-ending for her. [0]: https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1309620500176556032 https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1309620500176556032

ghaff 6y ago
Just by it happening, it's already career-limiting. I'm not sure every even serious screw up needs to result in a firing squad. That said, this is certainly in the category of things that can certainly end up that way at a major news org. See also Rathergate.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > Just by it happening, it's already career-limiting Oh absolutely - and I don't think she shouldn't necessarily be a journalist/storyteller anymore (clearly has somewhat of a knack for it) but not at a NYT/Wapo/WSJ.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    For all the heat those pubs get, my personal experience with them is that they're pretty meticulous with their reporting. (Which of course doesn't mean they don't sometimes miss the bigger picture even if their facts as reported are correct.) I had a total nothingburger quote in the WSJ a bit back and the whole process took 2 phone discussions, some back and forth messaging, and a fact check on email (presumably to put on record). For something that was completely banal.
dalbasal 6y ago
Maybe I came off as more definitive than I intended. I agree with the retraction. It was required, but it's really more of a follow-on than a retraction. An apology to Canadian police is more necessary, probably. That's a no-fault too though, in my estimation. They had to keep quiet while investigating, and temporarily absorb criticism. That's a hazard of the job though. I see nothing wrong with this tweet, never mind "career-ending." "1. Big news out of Canada: Abu Huzayfah has been arrested on a terrorist “hoax” charge. The narrative tension of our podcast “Caliphate” is the question of whether his account is true. In Chapter 6 we explain the conflicting strands of his story, and what we can and can’t confirm" Shades of uncertainty. This is honest journalism. Whether or not she felt overconfident in any given detail or narrative, the we got to hear the account, suspicions, reasons to dismiss or believe the source (chaudhry). I don't think anyone reasonably concludes that his account is mostly honest or accurate, just that it may contain truth. He literally gets outed and confronted about being a liar. I am not a journalist. I can tell from that podcast that there are reasons for the strong reaction that look different from a journalistic perspective and a layman's one. I think the difference (to me) is frame. If in episode 3, she totally believes his account and by episode 6 she's dubious... that's the nature of doing investigative journalism as a temporal series.

tabbott 6y ago

Yeah, this was my reaction as well. The reason I found Caliphate interesting was not the details of Chaudhry's story, which I experienced as were portrayed as dubious and in need of verification throughout; I certainly finished the podcast feeling uncertain whether Chaudhry had actually done any of the things he claimed. Instead, the reason I've recommended this podcast to friends is that it spends most of its time on a fascinating exploration of the journalistic process. How does reporter verify claims made by people about events in a war zone? The people you interview have a reason to lie to you, sneaking across borders doesn't generate passport stamps, and reliable records are hard to come by. This latest news feels like an interesting addendum to all that; I'd have expected any other podcast publisher to do an additional episode or two covering the new evidence and grappling with what that changes about the conclusions one can draw (certainly Serial has done a number of updates on new evidence about its past stories). That said, my sense is that the NYT is taking this extreme action in part because they in retrospect are unhappy with the fact-checking process for the podcast, and I could see that sort of concern motivating this type of retraction/disowning despite all the uncertainty the podcast itself presented.

taway21 6y ago

>> Also, the whole series was constructed somewhat naively. I would use the word naively if it weren't journalist Rukmini Callimachi, who has created her entire career on the basis of secret terrorism in the Muslim community. At this point, that is her entire narrative and she finds anything to support it and ignores whatever doesnt support this specific narrative. Interestingly, he never covers similar things in other religious communities and focuses only on Muslims. She is this generation's Daniel Pipes. Her association with the NYT is also shameful, because she is more Fox News quality w/r/t balance

dalbasal 6y ago
I don't mean "naively" in the "the author is neutral" sense. I mean that it is not framed like an encyclopedia or conventional investigative journalism print. It is framed as the story of the investigation. It isn't "my conclusions after investigating this for 2 years." This frames has a lot of room for shades of uncertainty than conventional ones. In that sense, this is actually a better Meanwhile, I don't think she has any obligation to investigate terrorism in other religious communities at all. The editor might have an obligation similar to do that, depending on newsworthiness. But I don't see how it applies here anyway. Once ISIS/L established territory in Syria they became the most newsworthy topic of the decade. Ot's normal that careers are made on the biggest story of a decade. I'm not saying she has no biases. Journalists have biases. Political biases, biases to certain archetypal narratives, the importance or truth of their own story, etc. But, moreso than most, Caliphate did portray a detail rich picture. You can make your own judgements with facts she provides, even if they are different to hers. That's honest journalism. >>Her association with the NYT is also shameful, because she is more Fox News quality w/r/t balance I guess this is the reason I wrote the comment originally. It's disingenuous to portray this as a low watermark for NYT (or most other big newsorgs). There are many worse offences. Since you are comparing to fox news and balance, I assume you are comparing to "opinion reporting," and such. If we include that, then half the ship is under water. Opinion writing is outside of the journalistic standards allegedly violated here. But by layman standards, Callimachi is far more honest and balanced than any opinion at NYT... and obviously cable news stuff.
- 6y ago