www.realclearpolitics.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
2600:9000:2156:2200:1a:cea5:c600:93a1
Public Scan
Submitted URL: https://lnkd.in/gyphVMjz
Effective URL: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/02/08/why_newspapers_refuse_to_correct_errors_147153.html
Submission: On February 10 via manual from US — Scanned from DE
Effective URL: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/02/08/why_newspapers_refuse_to_correct_errors_147153.html
Submission: On February 10 via manual from US — Scanned from DE
Form analysis 1 forms found in the DOM
<form class="ng-pristine ng-valid"><input type="text" id="searchBox" name="q"></form>Text Content
* Policy
* Markets
* World
* Defense
* Energy
* Health
* Science
* Religion
* Education
* Sports
* History
* Books
* Publishing
* Investigations
* Foundation
* Life
Subscribe
Sign In | Subscribe Ad-Free
* Polls
* Latest Polls
* Biden Job Approval
* Direction of Country
* Political Leaders Favorability
* Congress Job Approval
* Election Polls
* Generic Ballot
* State of Union Polls
* Election 2022
* Senate Map
* Governors Map
* Generic Congressional Ballot
* Senate Polls
* House Polls
* Governor Polls
* Video
* Writers
* Tom Bevan
* Carl M. Cannon
* Sean Trende
* Susan Crabtree
* Philip Wegmann
* Columnist
* J. Peder Zane
* Bill Scher
* A.B. Stoddard
* Frank Miele
* Contributors
* Jared D. Carl
* L. Sandy Maisel
* Richard Porter
* Luis Farias
* Ann Ravel
* Jessica Curtis
* Wendell L. Willkie II
* Lance Trover
* William A. Pierce
* Steve McIntosh
* Mary Vought
* Adam Brandon
* Russell Muirhead
* Josef Joffe
* Mark Glennon
* Haley Barbour
* Marco Rubio
* Ted Dabrowski
* Sen. Rob Portman
* John Hart
* Sandy Maisel
* Lou Cannon
* Charles Lipson
* Anneke E. Green
* Peter Berkowitz
* Myra Adams
* Joel Kotkin
* More
* Login
* Polls
* Latest Polls
* Biden Job Approval
* Direction of Country
* Political Leaders Favorability
* Congress Job Approval
* Election Polls
* Generic Ballot
* State of Union Polls
* RCP Election 2022
* Senate Map
* Governors Map
* Generic Congressional Ballot
* Senate Polls
* House Polls
* Governor Polls
* Video
* Writers
* Tom Bevan
* Carl M. Cannon
* Sean Trende
* Susan Crabtree
* Philip Wegmann
* Columnist
* J. Peder Zane
* Bill Scher
* A.B. Stoddard
* Frank Miele
* Contributors
* Jared D. Carl
* L. Sandy Maisel
* Richard Porter
* Luis Farias
* Ann Ravel
* Jessica Curtis
* Wendell L. Willkie II
* Lance Trover
* William A. Pierce
* Steve McIntosh
* Mary Vought
* Adam Brandon
* Russell Muirhead
* Josef Joffe
* Mark Glennon
* Haley Barbour
* Marco Rubio
* Ted Dabrowski
* Sen. Rob Portman
* John Hart
* Sandy Maisel
* Lou Cannon
* Charles Lipson
* Anneke E. Green
* Peter Berkowitz
* Myra Adams
* Joel Kotkin
* Articles
* Opinion Research
* Newsletters
* Podcasts
* Cartoons
* Links
* Publishing
* Speakers
* Contact
* About
* Media Kit
up next:
now reading: Why Newspapers Refuse to Correct Errors
WHY NEWSPAPERS REFUSE TO CORRECT ERRORS
COMMENTARY
.
By J. Peder Zane
February 08, 2022
(AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)
(AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)
X
Story Stream
recent articles
* Video: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...
* Article: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...
* Article: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...
* Entry: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...
* Video: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...
Many iconic U.S. newspapers sport slogans that seek to explain their mission –
and self-image. “All the News That’s Fit to Print” has been called “the seven
most famous words in American journalism.” “Democracy Dies in Darkness” was an
overtly partisan call to arms. But the most telling section of a newspaper’s
true values is its “Corrections” page. That’s where journalism distinguishes
itself from just about every other profession, routinely and straightforwardly
admitting its mistakes. Who else does that?
It is a soul-crushing enterprise. A single misspelled name is all it takes to
ruin an otherwise stellar article. We reporters may forget the topic of the
piece we wrote last week, while the error five years ago is seared into our
memories. But it is also crucial: Reader trust is the lifeblood of journalism.
If you can’t believe what you read, why bother?
Recommended
✕
Advertisement
* 1
Trump: Our Leaders Torture Your Children With Masks In School While They Host
Parties With Unmasked Donors
* 2
Undersecretary Of State Victoria Nuland: U.S. Is Arming Ukraine So They Can
"Slow Moscow's Roll" To Kiev, Make It A "Bloody Fight"
* 3
KT McFarland: Trump-Russia Scare Really Pushed Russia Into "Cahoots" With
China, Ukraine/Taiwan Both Under Threat
* 4
Trump: Before Our Leaders Talk About Invading Another Country They Need To
Stop The Invasion Of This Country
* 5
Justice Stephen Breyer Retirement Speech: People Don't Agree, But I Think The
American Experiment Is Going To Work
* 6
Miranda Devine On DHS Flying Illegal Migrants: This Just Looks Like A Federal
Government "Scam"
More from Real Clear
And yet, we do get things wrong all the time. Despite the self-righteous claims
of too many news outlets, journalists don’t print The Truth. The “first draft of
history” is necessarily messy and incomplete. What journalists have long
promised readers is that we will do our best to get the story right initially
and then set the record straight when better information emerges. This isn’t
solely a commitment to high-minded ethics. It is also transactional: Journalists
can so readily acknowledge errors because readers honor and reward our honesty.
They forgive us our trespasses because we acknowledge them.
Unfortunately, this glorious compact between readers and journalists is evolving
in dangerous directions, as news coverage becomes corrupted by the
give-no-quarter partisan divide that shapes our politics. Increasingly, readers
expect their favored news sources to advance their favored narrative, the facts
be damned. And many news outlets, beset by immense economic challenges, seem
happy to satisfy them to stay afloat.
A notable example is the stubborn unwillingness of major news outlets to correct
clear errors in their coverage of the Trump-Russia investigation.
On Nov. 24, my colleague at RealClearInvestigations, Aaron Maté, wrote a
detailed article highlighting a series of stories published by the New York
Times and the Washington Post that contained “false or misleading claims.” The
pieces he analyzed were either part of the entry the papers submitted to win a
2018 Pulitzer Prize for their Russiagate coverage or were written by reporters
who shared in that honor. Significantly, the major errors and misleading
assertions identified by Maté were not based on newly discovered information,
but on documents and statements long in the public domain.
Before publication, Maté sent multiple detailed requests for comment to the
reporters and newspaper representatives. All but one of his queries went
unanswered. As of Feb. 7, neither newspaper has appended a single correction or
clarification to the articles Maté discussed. Here are two examples from the
Times that reflect the problems Maté found.
Example 1: On Feb. 14, 2017, the Times published a bombshell report that seemed
to establish a Trump-Russia conspiracy:
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016
presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with
senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according
to four current and former American officials.
Four months later, then-FBI Director James B. Comey undercut that story when he
testified to Congress that "in the main,” the Times report “was not true."
Documents declassified in 2020 show that this view was widely held at the FBI.
Peter Strzok, the top FBI counterintelligence agent who opened the Trump-Russia
probe, described the article as "misleading and inaccurate.”
“We are unaware,” Strzok wrote, “of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations
with Russian intelligence officials.” Their view was corroborated by Special
Counsel Robert S. Mueller, whose extensive Russiagate report contained no
evidence of contacts between Trump associates and Russian intelligence
officials, senior or otherwise.
Perhaps the newspaper’s sources had information that the men leading the probe
were unaware of. At the very least, the Times should address such questions
about the accuracy of its reporting. It has not.
Example 2: On Dec. 30, 2017, the Times reported that the FBI opened its
Trump-Russia investigation because of evidence that the Trump campaign knew
about an earlier hack of DNC servers:
During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George
Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a
startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat [Alexander Downer] in Britain:
Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.
About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had
thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an
effort to try to damage her campaign. …
The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had
inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an
investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and
whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.
The key details of this Pulitzer Prize-winning article have been contradicted by
the only two people involved. For starters, the Times creates the impression
that intoxication prompted confession. Papadopoulos and Downer agree they each
had a single drink. Where the Times specifically ties the conversation to the
DNC hack, Downer says Papadopoulos never referred to hacked emails – or even
“dirt.” “He mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary
Clinton in the lead-up to the election, which may be damaging,” Downer said.
Maté also noted that the FBI’s July 31, 2016 electronic communication that
officially opened its Russia investigation was similarly vague, reporting only
that Downer had told the U.S. government that Papadopoulos had “suggested the
Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could
assist” it by anonymously releasing damaging information about Clinton and
President Obama.
In sum, the Times falsely reported that the FBI had significant and specific
reason to take the extreme step of opening a counterintelligence probe of a
presidential campaign – a direct link to the stolen emails. Instead, it merely
had murky, and apparently second-hand, barroom gossip. As with the first
example, it is likely that the Times was misled by its sources. That is no
excuse to let stand work whose accuracy has been meaningfully undercut by the
facts.
Because the paper has refused to address these issues, we don’t know why it
stands by this reporting. Perhaps it knows things we do not. Regardless, it has
an obligation to set the record straight. Silence is the enemy of transparency.
The Times is not operating in a vacuum. One reason it is not owning up to its
errors is that the people whose goodwill it depends on – its readers and the
larger journalistic community, including the board of the Pulitzer Prize – do
not seem to care. I think they believe our country is at war with itself and
that admitting that the most prestigious news outlets on their side made grave
errors in reporting the biggest story of the last five years would give succor
to the enemy. Perversely, acknowledging these errors would be an act of betrayal
to the larger cause embraced by the increasingly radicalized minority of people
who buy their product and pay their bills. Tout pour la guerre.
This sorry situation has been a long time coming. At least since the 1980s,
conservatives have actively accused mainstream outlets of liberal bias. In a
healthy society, the editors would have taken this seriously, using the
criticism that seemed valid (not all of it was or is) to improve their coverage.
Instead, over time, they have transformed the complaints into a rationale for
becoming even more biased. They dismiss it all as right-wing talking points.
Even, apparently, factual errors.
No wonder Gallup reports America’s trust in the media is near an all-time low.
If you can’t count on journalists to set the record straight, why bother?
J. Peder Zane is an editor for RealClearInvestigations and a columnist for
RealClearPolitics.
Recommended Newsletters
Carl M. Cannon's Morning Note
headlines against the historic events
RCP Today
Top stories on RealClearPolitics
Related Topics: Trump, Robert Mueller, Washington Post, New York Times,
Journalism, Peter StrzokRussia Investigation, Russia, Politics,
Comment
Show comments Hide Comments
You must be logged in to comment.
RCP Account: Login Register
Advertisement
Advertisement
More from Real Clear
* 1
Trump: Our Leaders Torture Your Children With Masks In School While They Host
Parties With Unmasked Donors
* 2
Undersecretary Of State Victoria Nuland: U.S. Is Arming Ukraine So They Can
"Slow Moscow's Roll" To Kiev, Make It A "Bloody Fight"
* 3
KT McFarland: Trump-Russia Scare Really Pushed Russia Into "Cahoots" With
China, Ukraine/Taiwan Both Under Threat
* 4
Trump: Before Our Leaders Talk About Invading Another Country They Need To
Stop The Invasion Of This Country
* 5
Justice Stephen Breyer Retirement Speech: People Don't Agree, But I Think The
American Experiment Is Going To Work
* 6
Miranda Devine On DHS Flying Illegal Migrants: This Just Looks Like A Federal
Government "Scam"
Recommended Newsletters
Carl M. Cannon's Morning Note
headlines against the historic events
RCP Today
Top stories on RealClearPolitics
RCP Takeaway
Examining political events Podcast
RCP Events
Invitations to events around the country
For More Newsletters Click Here
* Politics
* Policy
* Markets
* World
* Defense
* Energy
* Health
* Science
* Religion
* Investigations
* Education
* Foundation
* History
* Books
* Life
* About Us
* Privacy Policy
* Advertise With Us
* Contact
* RSS
* View Mobile Site
Copyright © 2022 RealClearHoldings, LLC.
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
©2022 RealClearPolitics | Go to full site
user-signalWir schätzen Ihre Privatsphäre
Alles ablehnenAlles akzeptieren
Wir und unsere Partner informationen auf einem gerät speichern und/oder abrufen.
Für die Ihnen angezeigten Verarbeitungszwecke können Cookies, Geräte-Kennungen
oder andere Informationen auf Ihrem Gerät gespeichert oder abgerufen werden.
Anzeigen und Inhalte können basierend auf einem Profil personalisiert werden. Es
können Daten hinzugefügt werden, um Anzeigen und Inhalte besser zu
personalisieren. Die Leistung von Anzeigen und Inhalten kann gemessen werden.
Erkenntnisse über die Zielgruppen, die die Anzeigen und Inhalte gesehen haben,
können abgeleitet werden. Ihre Daten können verwendet werden, um bestehende
Systeme und Software zu verbessern und neue Produkte zu entwickeln.
Einige Partner bitten nicht um Ihre Zustimmung zur Verarbeitung Ihrer Daten und
verlassen sich stattdessen auf deren berechtigtes Interesse. Sehen Sie sich
unsere Liste der Partner an, um zu sehen, für welche Zwecke sie ein berechtigtes
Interesse haben und wie Sie dagegen Einwände erheben können.
Ihre Auswahl auf dieser Website wird für diese Website angewendet. Sie können
Ihre Einstellungen jederzeit ändern, indem Sie Ihre Einwilligung widerrufen,
indem Sie auf das Schlosssymbol in der unteren rechten oder linken Ecke klicken.
checklistZweckesettings-toggle-horizontalPartner
Powered By