5 ms·

The people in that Slack thread, except for the reporter James LaPorta, exhibited an incredible amount of willful ignorance that bordered on stupidity. The orig

by IncRnd 4y ago

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 were vetted as correct, or whether the official was vetted as having said those words. Named officials, such as Presidents and Secretaries of State, get us into wars through misapplication of evidence and in some cases creation of evidence. These doomsday reporters and editors are nothing more than squabbling hacks, using third hand stories from second hand reporters that are then published by third party editors. I was in shock when I read, "I can't imagine a US intelligence official would be wrong on this." This thread contained people who should all have been fired, except for the person who was fired. Either that or pay for them to attend remedial journalism school. The road to hell is paved with good itentions, but your guides on that road are AP editors.

xphilter 4y ago
My mantra is that it’s always bad management. Insane that none of the managers or editors got fired here. What a mess!
ekianjo 4y ago
People seem to only discover now that AP is not even a remotely reliable organization. You just had to read their news to find out.
1letterunixname 4y ago
All of us is not as smart as one of us. The thundering herds of groupthink and Tragedy of the Commons ensue.
zapdrive 4y ago
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
  With conclusion-jumping skills like that, you may have a bright future as an editor at the AP.
- ww-picard-do 4y ago
  > Maybe AP did not want to create a shitstorm by firing one of the 5 women And your speculation is backed by evidence? Or are you spreading unconfirmed rumors just like those in this story?
MattDemers 4y ago
> Either that or pay for them to attend remedial journalism school. You're assuming that journalism school is teaching things that are preventing this from happening.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  Excellent point. This is standard practice for Pentagon stenographers. Someone just got caught too far out on a limb on this occasion.
HillRat 4y ago
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 that the missile was a Russian offensive missile that went awry. It's very possible, indeed likely, that a national security source, possibly within NATO/ACO/SHAPE, jumped the gun (so to speak) based on Polish sources; what we do know is that as ISR data came in, the USG itself (including Biden and SecDef) was officially reticent to affix blame until they were able to pinpoint the explosion as coming from Ukraine air defense. As you say, there was a failure in the editorial process -- LaPorta passed along a tip from a source, Karam made the call to go with the story based entirely on that source. For the AP to go after a journo who didn't even write the story, and then say that they don't intend to even dig into the editorial failures, is unconscionable.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
devindotcom 4y ago
I feel your clear and general disdain for the press is coloring your interpretation of events here and the reality of editing and sourcing. There was an editorial failure, certainly, but in a rapidly changing situation due to a misunderstanding of the evidence given by a vetted source (such sources are seldom named even internally). Don't forget five or six nations were "squabbling" over the origin and nature of these missiles for days afterwards. Russian missiles did hit Poland, but they were Russian-made, not Russian-launched. It's not hard to imagine how easily this message could be muddled somewhere between Lviv and New York. The person saying US intel was unlikely to be wrong was not evincing a blind trust in government but expressing that a vetted source was unlikely to volunteer information of this nature, in this situation, that was inaccurate, given that Poland had essentially confirmed there was a crisis event unfolding. It was not a third hand story (US intel official claimed direct knowledge), reporters are not second hand (they interpret, contextualize, and synthesize) and editors are not third party (they are an integral part of the news process). News organizations are under immense pressure from every quarter. It is very easy to pick apart the process in retrospect and suggest they should have distrusted a trusted source or questioned the somewhat ambiguous wording of the message from the reporter. News, and reporting about war especially, is complex and messy - remember this all took place within 9 minutes. That does not make these people "doomsday reporters," "hacks," or that they need to be fired and attend remedial journalism school. It was an honest mistake not unique to virtual newsrooms but exacerbated by them. They retracted the story when it was clear that the intel their source provided was mistaken, fired the reporter for, I would guess, failing to communicate and handle the news properly, and likely chastised the editors for erring too far on the side of shipping the news. Sorry for this long comment, I just completely disagree with your assessment.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  It was not a third hand story (US intel official claimed direct knowledge), reporters are not second hand (they interpret, contextualize, and synthesize) and editors are not third party (they are an integral part of the news process). It literally, according to the definition of third-hand, was a third-hand story. This isn't up for debate, as the term can be found in any dictionary. Your parenthetical on the direct knowledge is wrong. Direct knowledge was not stated anywhere. That is your spin or second-hand version of what was written in the slack thread, which was at least second hand derivative of the missile strikes.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by IncRnd 4y ago

xphilter 4y ago

My mantra is that it’s always bad management. Insane that none of the managers or editors got fired here. What a mess!

ekianjo 4y ago

People seem to only discover now that AP is not even a remotely reliable organization. You just had to read their news to find out.

1letterunixname 4y ago

All of us is not as smart as one of us. The thundering herds of groupthink and Tragedy of the Commons ensue.

zapdrive 4y ago

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
With conclusion-jumping skills like that, you may have a bright future as an editor at the AP.
ww-picard-do 4y ago
> Maybe AP did not want to create a shitstorm by firing one of the 5 women And your speculation is backed by evidence? Or are you spreading unconfirmed rumors just like those in this story?

MattDemers 4y ago

> Either that or pay for them to attend remedial journalism school. You're assuming that journalism school is teaching things that are preventing this from happening.

miguelazo 4y ago
Excellent point. This is standard practice for Pentagon stenographers. Someone just got caught too far out on a limb on this occasion.

HillRat 4y ago

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 that the missile was a Russian offensive missile that went awry. It's very possible, indeed likely, that a national security source, possibly within NATO/ACO/SHAPE, jumped the gun (so to speak) based on Polish sources; what we do know is that as ISR data came in, the USG itself (including Biden and SecDef) was officially reticent to affix blame until they were able to pinpoint the explosion as coming from Ukraine air defense. As you say, there was a failure in the editorial process -- LaPorta passed along a tip from a source, Karam made the call to go with the story based entirely on that source. For the AP to go after a journo who didn't even write the story, and then say that they don't intend to even dig into the editorial failures, is unconscionable.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

devindotcom 4y ago

I feel your clear and general disdain for the press is coloring your interpretation of events here and the reality of editing and sourcing. There was an editorial failure, certainly, but in a rapidly changing situation due to a misunderstanding of the evidence given by a vetted source (such sources are seldom named even internally). Don't forget five or six nations were "squabbling" over the origin and nature of these missiles for days afterwards. Russian missiles did hit Poland, but they were Russian-made, not Russian-launched. It's not hard to imagine how easily this message could be muddled somewhere between Lviv and New York. The person saying US intel was unlikely to be wrong was not evincing a blind trust in government but expressing that a vetted source was unlikely to volunteer information of this nature, in this situation, that was inaccurate, given that Poland had essentially confirmed there was a crisis event unfolding. It was not a third hand story (US intel official claimed direct knowledge), reporters are not second hand (they interpret, contextualize, and synthesize) and editors are not third party (they are an integral part of the news process). News organizations are under immense pressure from every quarter. It is very easy to pick apart the process in retrospect and suggest they should have distrusted a trusted source or questioned the somewhat ambiguous wording of the message from the reporter. News, and reporting about war especially, is complex and messy - remember this all took place within 9 minutes. That does not make these people "doomsday reporters," "hacks," or that they need to be fired and attend remedial journalism school. It was an honest mistake not unique to virtual newsrooms but exacerbated by them. They retracted the story when it was clear that the intel their source provided was mistaken, fired the reporter for, I would guess, failing to communicate and handle the news properly, and likely chastised the editors for erring too far on the side of shipping the news. Sorry for this long comment, I just completely disagree with your assessment.

IncRnd 4y ago
It was not a third hand story (US intel official claimed direct knowledge), reporters are not second hand (they interpret, contextualize, and synthesize) and editors are not third party (they are an integral part of the news process). It literally, according to the definition of third-hand, was a third-hand story. This isn't up for debate, as the term can be found in any dictionary. Your parenthetical on the direct knowledge is wrong. Direct knowledge was not stated anywhere. That is your spin or second-hand version of what was written in the slack thread, which was at least second hand derivative of the missile strikes.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]