>>they're putting it out there as being at least partially true when it was actually entirely false. We know now that it was entirely false. She didn't at the

>>they're putting it out there as being at least partially true when it was actually entirely false. We know now that it was entirely false. She didn't at the time. The flak at Canadian police had to take is regrettable. They were investigating, had to keep quiet, and couldn't "clear their name" for several months. She owes an apology, but that's somewhat outside of "The Caliphate" itself. Look... I realize that my take on this is contradictory to journalistic norms. Maybe there is actual tension between practicable "journalistic integrity" and my layman's definition of "honest" journalism. Frame matters a lot. If you are printing a single column article summarizing the Chaudery saga, standard "journalist integrity" makes a lot of sense. Not verified enough. The primary source is lying about some stuff at least. Don't print. If you are making an audio series that follows a journalist on investigation... This allows for shades of uncertainty. Callimachi is very confident in the source at first. Later, she catches him on some lies. By the end, he's clearly a dubious source at best. I don't think you can summarize this as "putting it out there." This isn't a Reuters wire. You can have ambiguity. She should not have jumped to the conclusion that Canadian police were inept. That was bad instincts, and an investigative failure resulted. In any case, I'm not saying it's journalistically perfect. I'm just shocked that it is being treated as a low watermark. I feel like a lot of reporting can and does clear a "journalistic integrity" hurdle, but scores much lower than Callimachi in my estimation of "honest journalism." I guess we value different things. Tangent: something about this thread is making me think of "The Wire," All the lines about "good police work."