3 ms·
> LaPorta did not exactly claim that Nixon had approved the source in this case, but his words were interpreted by the editors to mean that he did. I think tha
by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
> LaPorta did not exactly claim that Nixon had approved the source in this case, but his words were interpreted by the editors to mean that he did.
I think that's a reasonable read. That's what I took away from it initially. He said an official source, which had been vetted, said a thing.
The fact that he didn't make it clear that this source had not been vetted for this particular report is negligent at best.
- nonethewiser 4y agoBut he was vetted. It's this report that wasnt vetted. If Nixon's judgement was critical for this report then why didnt they confirm with Nixon?
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y agoI'm not saying there weren't other failures here, just that LaPorta was vague. On purpose or not, he was vague, and that began the cascading failure event.
- SoftTalker 4y agoYes, either very poor wording or deliberately trying to imply something that he knew wasn't actually the case while still having plausible deniability.
- cpleppert 4y agoOne person commented specifically that the source was vetted (not the story). There was also another comment about how they couldn't believe a senior intelligence could be wrong ( so no reason to get a second source). This doesn't really make sense if the story was vetted by a senior editor. Also, why would a senior editor make any difference about the credibility of a story? Thats the reporters job. If the senior editor signed off on the story why then he would have immediately put the story out. Either the source is wrong or LaPorta was confused about "Russian missile" i.e. was it Russian made or fired by the Russian Federation?