5 ms·

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.

by ajross 4y ago

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.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> 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?
- ajross 4y ago
  > 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.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    And it’s not impossible to dream up a world where that kind of mistake would actually get Article 5 moving.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Ukraine is still insisting that they didn't fire the missile. It's not an oversight or a misinterpretation.
  - eshch 4y ago
    Ukraine should know not from AP whose missile it was, but they are still in denial, can you imagine?
- millzlane 4y ago
  Probably because Ukraine didn't fire on Poland they fired on armament launched by Russia.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Two main reasons 1) Article 5. If Poland is attacked NATO would have to use whatever force was needed to protect it. In Russia's case, that means war against a nuclear power. In Ukraine's case, it means telling them NATO'll stop delivering weapons and Ukraine can fight Russia alone unless they apologize. Even if there was a war with Ukraine, it's not a nuclear power and wouldn't last long against NATO. 2) It was an accident. Russia launching on Poland could have been intentional. Ukraine almost certainly did it by mistake. (BTW, Russia apologizing in an hour and paying reparations would likely also have had no long term effect). Since it was an accident Ukraine probably blamed Russia thinking it was Russia since they didn't think they had done it. And by "blamed" I mean, it was after the AP story brought it to light. So more like denied it was them. Fog of war and all.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > 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.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      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.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        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.
        HWR_14 4y ago
- vkou 4y ago
  > Why is "Ukraine fires on Poland, blames Russia" not news? The same reason that a lot of people assumed that "Russia fires a single missile at Poland" was not an obvious, tragic accident from the get-go. Motivated thinking.
- elihu 4y ago
  Because there's no intentionality involved, and it's unlikely to escalate into a military conflict. "Ukraine fires an S-300 at a Russian missile but it misses and kills a couple people in Poland" is a tragic accident, probably newsworthy, but not in the same way as Russia or Ukraine deliberately launching missiles into Poland would. I think Russia deserves most of the blame for this incident, since it wouldn't have happened if they weren't trying to destroy their neighbor. Zelensky continuing to insist the missile that hit Poland was launched by Russia would be news I suppose. I think that's what he was saying early on, but I haven't been following the story; maybe he gave up on that once more information came out.
HWR_14 4y ago
> . 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.
- ajross 4y ago
  That's not how I read the linked story? That particular Slack message happened to coincide with his doctor's appointment, but the article that printed had his byline on it. Surely he wrote it, or at the very least dictated it to an editor who put it in the system. No one publishes stories on the wire based on a two-message slack thread sent from the doctor's office!
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    Unfortunately, and unless AP releases something further in the way of explaining this, we don’t actually know if that’s what happened. Their retraction note is very brief, and simply states the information was wrong. Edit: pasting the entire message > WARSAW, Poland (AP) — In earlier versions of a story published November 15, 2022, The Associated Press reported erroneously, based on information from a senior American intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity, that Russian missiles had crossed into Poland and killed two people. Subsequent reporting showed that the missiles were Russian-made and most likely fired by Ukraine in defense against a Russian attack. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-zelenskyy-kherson-9202c032cf3a5c22761ee71b52ff9d52 https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-zelenskyy-kher...
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    What article with his byline? It looks like someone else wrote the news alert that's discussed in the linked article.
  - Jarwain 4y ago
    That's exactly what it looks like happened, though! He posts the received tip at 1:32, mentions his doctors appt at 1:38. Lisa says sending alert at 1:40.
defrost 4y ago
It started with commonplace entry level potential story journalism. The reporter literally passed on a tip that missiles (alleged to be Russian type missiles) had landed in Poland (true). He also passed on that this came from a previously vetted source (also true). After this point the story was literally in the hands of the editorial staff.
- sundvor 4y ago
  Lisa: "Can we report from that or do we need confirmation from another source". James: "That call is above my pay grade" + "I'm at a doctor's appointment". Zeina says "source is vetted". Newsflash sent. Then later retracted. Laporta fired. Just flabbergasting.
chiefalchemist 4y ago
Not to sound like a wise-ass but by defintion there is no such thing as bad journalism. If you're doing "bad journalism" you're doing journalism at all. Giving such credit (even with the disclaimer of bad) where credit is *no* due is why the "news media" has become so pathetic and Orwellian. It's sad to see a profession that doesn't even know its own definition and standards. They can be clueless, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to be complicit. https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1 https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1
ncallaway 4y ago
> 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. Did you read the slack chat? The journalist 100% does not need another source to inform his internal team of the initial story or the sourcing. Did the journalist make the decision to publish? NO! They said that decision was above their pay grade. When people asked for clarifying information, they said they didn't have any. That's why it was an editorial mistake. Frankly, I simply don't see how you can conclude the journalist needed another source, given that it clearly it wasn't their decision to publish the article. That was an...editorial decision! Which is why I think the blame for publishing without enough information should go to...the editorial team
eshch 4y ago
>just an identification of these as AA missiles would have been enough to kill the story Oh, you don't know the story how Ukraine constantly blames Russia for striking civilians by repurposed S-300 missiles! I bet this is the reason they are still in denial about the Poland incident. Because it breaks the legend and points to the real cause: issues with the missiles they launched. Meanwhile there is a constant flow of videos where Ukraine's S-300 missiles fly into land.

by ajross 4y ago

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> 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?

ajross 4y ago
> 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.
- bombcar 4y ago
  And it’s not impossible to dream up a world where that kind of mistake would actually get Article 5 moving.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Ukraine is still insisting that they didn't fire the missile. It's not an oversight or a misinterpretation.
- eshch 4y ago
  Ukraine should know not from AP whose missile it was, but they are still in denial, can you imagine?
millzlane 4y ago
Probably because Ukraine didn't fire on Poland they fired on armament launched by Russia.
HWR_14 4y ago
Two main reasons 1) Article 5. If Poland is attacked NATO would have to use whatever force was needed to protect it. In Russia's case, that means war against a nuclear power. In Ukraine's case, it means telling them NATO'll stop delivering weapons and Ukraine can fight Russia alone unless they apologize. Even if there was a war with Ukraine, it's not a nuclear power and wouldn't last long against NATO. 2) It was an accident. Russia launching on Poland could have been intentional. Ukraine almost certainly did it by mistake. (BTW, Russia apologizing in an hour and paying reparations would likely also have had no long term effect). Since it was an accident Ukraine probably blamed Russia thinking it was Russia since they didn't think they had done it. And by "blamed" I mean, it was after the AP story brought it to light. So more like denied it was them. Fog of war and all.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > 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.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    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.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      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.
      - HWR_14 4y ago
vkou 4y ago
> Why is "Ukraine fires on Poland, blames Russia" not news? The same reason that a lot of people assumed that "Russia fires a single missile at Poland" was not an obvious, tragic accident from the get-go. Motivated thinking.
elihu 4y ago
Because there's no intentionality involved, and it's unlikely to escalate into a military conflict. "Ukraine fires an S-300 at a Russian missile but it misses and kills a couple people in Poland" is a tragic accident, probably newsworthy, but not in the same way as Russia or Ukraine deliberately launching missiles into Poland would. I think Russia deserves most of the blame for this incident, since it wouldn't have happened if they weren't trying to destroy their neighbor. Zelensky continuing to insist the missile that hit Poland was launched by Russia would be news I suppose. I think that's what he was saying early on, but I haven't been following the story; maybe he gave up on that once more information came out.

HWR_14 4y ago

> . 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.

ajross 4y ago
That's not how I read the linked story? That particular Slack message happened to coincide with his doctor's appointment, but the article that printed had his byline on it. Surely he wrote it, or at the very least dictated it to an editor who put it in the system. No one publishes stories on the wire based on a two-message slack thread sent from the doctor's office!
- remarkEon 4y ago
  Unfortunately, and unless AP releases something further in the way of explaining this, we don’t actually know if that’s what happened. Their retraction note is very brief, and simply states the information was wrong. Edit: pasting the entire message > WARSAW, Poland (AP) — In earlier versions of a story published November 15, 2022, The Associated Press reported erroneously, based on information from a senior American intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity, that Russian missiles had crossed into Poland and killed two people. Subsequent reporting showed that the missiles were Russian-made and most likely fired by Ukraine in defense against a Russian attack. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-zelenskyy-kherson-9202c032cf3a5c22761ee71b52ff9d52 https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-zelenskyy-kher...
- HWR_14 4y ago
  What article with his byline? It looks like someone else wrote the news alert that's discussed in the linked article.
- Jarwain 4y ago
  That's exactly what it looks like happened, though! He posts the received tip at 1:32, mentions his doctors appt at 1:38. Lisa says sending alert at 1:40.

defrost 4y ago

It started with commonplace entry level potential story journalism. The reporter literally passed on a tip that missiles (alleged to be Russian type missiles) had landed in Poland (true). He also passed on that this came from a previously vetted source (also true). After this point the story was literally in the hands of the editorial staff.

sundvor 4y ago
Lisa: "Can we report from that or do we need confirmation from another source". James: "That call is above my pay grade" + "I'm at a doctor's appointment". Zeina says "source is vetted". Newsflash sent. Then later retracted. Laporta fired. Just flabbergasting.

chiefalchemist 4y ago

Not to sound like a wise-ass but by defintion there is no such thing as bad journalism. If you're doing "bad journalism" you're doing journalism at all. Giving such credit (even with the disclaimer of bad) where credit is *no* due is why the "news media" has become so pathetic and Orwellian. It's sad to see a profession that doesn't even know its own definition and standards. They can be clueless, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to be complicit. https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1 https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1

ncallaway 4y ago

> 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. Did you read the slack chat? The journalist 100% does not need another source to inform his internal team of the initial story or the sourcing. Did the journalist make the decision to publish? NO! They said that decision was above their pay grade. When people asked for clarifying information, they said they didn't have any. That's why it was an editorial mistake. Frankly, I simply don't see how you can conclude the journalist needed another source, given that it clearly it wasn't their decision to publish the article. That was an...editorial decision! Which is why I think the blame for publishing without enough information should go to...the editorial team

eshch 4y ago

>just an identification of these as AA missiles would have been enough to kill the story Oh, you don't know the story how Ukraine constantly blames Russia for striking civilians by repurposed S-300 missiles! I bet this is the reason they are still in denial about the Poland incident. Because it breaks the legend and points to the real cause: issues with the missiles they launched. Meanwhile there is a constant flow of videos where Ukraine's S-300 missiles fly into land.