3 ms·
> "In fact, the exact information he passed along was factually correct by one interpretation. The S-300 rockets were "Russian" in the sense that they were Russ
by elihu 4y ago
> "In fact, the exact information he passed along was factually correct by one interpretation. The S-300 rockets were "Russian" in the sense that they were Russian manufacturing. They were not "Russian" in the sense that they were fired by Russian armed forces (to the best of our knowledge)."
I think if the reporter knew the missiles were fired by Ukrainian forces but manufactured by Russia, then he's ultimately responsible for communicating that in a clear way that isn't going to be misconstrued to mean something it doesn't.
In this case though I think it's more likely that his source told him something that wasn't true, and there was a misunderstanding about just how well-vetted the source was. Whether the reporter is responsible for that is less clear -- in that case it seems like calling it an editorial mistake rather than the reporter's mistake seems reasonable to me.
- ncallaway 4y ago> I think if the reporter knew the missiles were fired by Ukrainian forces but manufactured by Russia, then he's ultimately responsible for… I agree with this completely. > In this case though I think it's more likely that his source told him something that wasn't true… My point was that it could also been that the source told him something that was true, but the thing he understood it to mean was false. So, source says “a Russian S-300 missile hit Ukraine” (where Russian was just intended to be a clarification about the manufacture of S-300), the journalist misunderstands as “a Russian launched missile hit Ukraine”, and writes the slack message. Obviously, this is just a hypothetical, but it’s an example of why editorial should’ve waited until they had another source, and taken time to clarify/vet.