It was sometimes a source of tension between me and my editors at The Stranger, but as both a blogger and a “real” (i.e. paid) journalist, I’ve always tried to resist the urge to scoop—and I’ve always resented the occasional demand from other journalists that I somehow owe them a public hat tip for “breaking” a story that I could’ve broken first if I wasn’t so busy making sure I got my words and analysis (and, sure, facts) right.
This has nothing to do with journalistic ethics; I don’t even claim to know all the rules, let alone adhere to them faithfully. I’m just more interested in adding value than being first. That’s what bloggers do. Of course, I’d rather be first. But the only scoops I’m truly proud of are the ones I made by virtue of seeing a story where others did not.
Perhaps had the New York Times embraced the same sentiment, they might have averted an embarrassing shit show like this:
Second, in its rush to publish what it clearly viewed as a major scoop, the Times relied on questionable sourcing and went ahead without bothering to seek corroborating evidence that could have supported its allegation.
In our conversations with the Times reporters, it was clear that they had not personally reviewed the IG’s referral that they falsely described as both criminal and focused on Hillary Clinton. Instead, they relied on unnamed sources that characterized the referral as such. However, it is not at all clear that those sources had directly seen the referral, either. This should have represented too many “degrees of separation” for any newspaper to consider it reliable sourcing, least of all The New York Times.
To be clear, the New York Times libeled Hillary Clinton, and were she not a public figure the paper would be facing a multi-million dollar settlement as the price of their negligence. And it all resulted from their prideful pursuit of a scoop.
The irony is, in the Internet age, nobody really gives a shit who was first. The way I experienced it, the story first broke on Twitter. But everybody now knows who broke the news by breaking it wrong.
After Judith Miller I take what they say with a grain of salt anyway. “Major news organization” sure doesn’t mean what it used to.
The U.S. intelligence community is bracing for the possibility that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email account contains hundreds of revelations of classified information from spy agencies and is taking steps to contain any damage to national security, according to documents and interviews Thursday.
The top lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committee have been notified in recent days that the extent of classified information on Mrs. Clinton’s private email server was likely far more extensive than the four emails publicly acknowledged last week as containing some sensitive spy agency secrets.
http://www.washingtontimes.com.....eparing-m/
Yes, we certainly don’t want any unearned damage to Secretary Clinton’s reputation.
Hundreds of classified information leaks by a private server shouldn’t rise to the level of criminality, after all. Could’ve happened to anyone.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind.....tion_leaks
Yeah…anyone.
@2
You….are….AWESOME!
In response to a now well known case of getting the story wrong by quoting unnamed sources you link to an article quoting nothing but unnamed sources. “Top Lawmakers” would that be Darrel “I’ll edit out a whole bunch of this stuff and let sentence four blend in with sentence 167 and Viola” Issa? Could it be Trey “I think I’ll have the witness testify about Media Matters, the Clinton Foundation, and oh yeah, one or two questions about Benghazi”
GoudyBenghazi?To be clear, the New York Times libeled Hillary Clinton, and were she not a public figure the paper would be facing a multi-million dollar settlement as the price of their negligence. And it all resulted from their prideful pursuit of a scoop.
Yeah checkmate you are a whack job… Strange when this happened Puddy doesn’t remember your commentary… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_lobbyist_controversy
Or if you weren’t around in 2008 you were around in 2013 https://verdict.justia.com/2013/09/06/who-won-vicki-iseman-or-the-new-york-times-and-what-about-the-debate
So pack it up dr numskull. Your bloviating has been identified again!
Valerie Plame / Karl Rove: Outing Valerie Plame
UTTER BULLSHITTIUM from the cretin rujaxoffallthetimestillprovingnuthinappears and its cretinous web sites it loves to troll every day starting before the first pot of coffee is drunk!
@5
“I’ll take regurgitating words to seem like I have something to say for $1200, Alex” – Piddles, or words to that effect.
Hmmmmm….attributing Goldy’s words to me, eh?
@6….
the dumbest fuckwad in a virtual universe of dumb fuckwads FORGETS that the ‘Plame’ affair is settled business.
The Dumbfuck Administration allowed a covert operative to be ‘outed’ and got real intelligence assets killed or muted.
Only dead-enders like fuckwad hold on to CheneyBushCo lies.
Well, Donald Trump swallowed it whole. He probably believes every press release out of Moscow, too.
@2 Bickle reads the Moonie Times, bwaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa …