“I think you’re correct that the language being used causes the confusion,” he said in an e-mail. “‘Released’ means different things to different readers. But I think the average person would take that to mean released ‘publicly.’ But they did ‘release’ them to several news organizations.”
Hopefully, the NPR correction and the attention it has garnered will lead to other, similar offerings from news organizations—and put an end to the mistaken reporting. (Politico, for example, corrected a report thanks to Schafer’s work on the matter.) In that respect, this correction from the January 6th edition of The Guardian is good news:
Accompanying a story about confidential US diplomatic cables leaked to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, a panel - HaikuLeaks, 31 December, page 19 - began: “For those with neither the time nor inclination to wade through all 251,287 of the diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks…”. So far, WikiLeaks has published only a portion of this total.
Correction of the Week
A PHOTOGRAPH that accompanied a story in yesterday’s Daily News was not of the massage therapist Shannon O’Toole, but of a different woman, an author also named Shannon O’Toole, who wrote ‘Wedded to the Game: The Real Lives of NFL Women.’
“That book, published by the University of Nebraska press in 2006, is a nonfiction account described in reviews as ‘realistic’ and based on interviews and surveys with wives and girlfriends of NFL players and coaches. She is not involved in a lawsuit massage therapists Shannon O’Toole and Christina Scavo filed against the Jets on Monday.” - New York Daily News
*Correction: This article originally misspelled the name of a Louisiana State grad student who maintains a blog called Lippmann Would Roll. He is Matthew Schafer, not Shafer. The misspelling has been corrected. CJR regrets the error.
“The US, for its part, would like to try [Assange] for making 250,000 confidential diplomatic cables public.”
This statement by Der Speigel is not inaccurate. Assange is, by his own admission, in the process of "making 250K cables public," and that is certainly why the US is hoping to arrest him.
When will CJR post a correction?
#1 Posted by Phil, CJR on Fri 7 Jan 2011 at 04:19 PM
Hi, Craig.
Thanks for a good review of the situation, and thanks to Jay Rosen for noticing the original error. We've added a correction/update to Hagit Limor's blog that explains the updated number (250,000 down to 2,000) and recognizes that we did not explain this correction initially. We thank you and Jay for letting us know.
Updated post: http://blogs.spjnetwork.org/president/?p=370
Best,
Scott Leadingham
Quill Editor
SPJ Communications Director
#2 Posted by Scott Leadingham, SPJ, CJR on Fri 7 Jan 2011 at 05:23 PM
Hi, Craig.
Thanks for a good review of the situation, and thanks to Jay Rosen for noticing the original error. We've added a correction/update to Hagit Limor's blog that explains the updated number (250,000 down to 2,000) and recognizes that we did not explain this correction initially. We thank you and Jay for letting us know.
Best,
Scott Leadingham
Quill Editor
SPJ Communications Director
#3 Posted by Scott Leadingham, SPJ, CJR on Fri 7 Jan 2011 at 05:24 PM
Hi, Craig.
Thanks for a good review of the situation, and thanks to Jay Rosen for noticing the original error. We've added a correction/update to Hagit Limor's blog that explains the updated number (250,000 down to 2,000) and recognizes that we did not explain this correction initially. We thank you and Jay for letting us know.
Best,
Scott Leadingham
Quill Editor
SPJ Communications Director
#4 Posted by Scott Leadingham, SPJ, CJR on Fri 7 Jan 2011 at 05:25 PM
Sorry about the multiple duplicate posts above. I thought the comment wasn't being posted due to tech issues, so I reposted several times. My apologies.
Best,
Scott Leadingham
#5 Posted by Scott Leadingham, CJR on Fri 7 Jan 2011 at 05:27 PM
@Phil
'Assange is, by his own admission, in the process of "making 250K cables public," and that is certainly why the US is hoping to arrest him.'
I suspect this is just a flat-out lie. Surely you can provide us with a quote validating this assertion.
If Assange wanted to make all of the cables public, he could have done so, months ago. Wikileaks has the cables. They have access to the Internet. There is no shortage of domains that would gladly serve as hosts to the documents.
I thought you were going to excuse Der Speigel for having used the qualifier "wants" as in "The US wants to try..."
I've no doubt that the US wants to pin all sorts of crimes on Assange. As soon as they declare what exactly the crime is supposed to be, that'll be news to all of us.
I suggest you read up your history of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. There are First Amendment issues here that you are blatantly ignoring.
#6 Posted by Rick, CJR on Fri 7 Jan 2011 at 06:19 PM
Information Week corrected an error along these lines shortly after Glenn Greenwald tweeted about it.
However, at glance, they are still making the error at least _6_ more times in various other articles. (In most of these cases, the context is not ambiguous--"posted/published 250,000...on their website", for example, is just plain wrong. Other times, they are quoting someone making the mistake and not telling readers that the information is wrong.)
Fidelis Snags Anti-WikiLeaks Contracts
Elizabeth Montalbano
Information Week, December 22, 2010
However, in the wake of a data breach known as Cablegate, in which 250,000 confidential diplomatic cables were published on Wikileaks and other websites…
Cybersecurity Post
Elizabeth Montalbano
Information Week, December 22, 2010
The creation of the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues was planned before the controversial publishing of 250,000 confidential U.S. diplomatic cables…
Air Force Blocks Web Sites With WikiLeaks Content
Elizabeth Montalbano
Information Week, December 15, 2010
Several weeks ago, WikiLeaks posted 250,000 confidential diplomatic cables…
Amazon Says Wikileaks Plug Pulled Over SLA Violation
Charles Babcock
Information Week, December 5, 2010
"Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing…"
Senators Back Amazon In WikiLeaks Fight
Paul McDougall
Information Week, December 10, 2010
"Companies that are cutting off their services to WikiLeaks in the wake of its release of 250,000 stolen and classified State Department cables…"
Schwartz On Security: WikiLeaks Highlights Cost Of Security
Mathew J. Schwartz
Information Week, December 8, 2010
"Mr. Assange is not himself responsible for the unauthorized release of 250,000 documents…"
#7 Posted by Marlys, CJR on Fri 7 Jan 2011 at 07:58 PM
@Rick
Gosh Rick, instead of accusing me of "a flat-out lie," maybe you could have spent the thirty seconds it would have taken to find it for yourself, and then you might not have embarrassed yourself. From Wikileaks own website, front page:
"On Sunday 28th Novembre 2010, Wikileaks began publishing 251,287 leaked United States embassy cables, the largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public domain."
The Der Speigel summary is not inaccurate and Silverman is wrong to suggest it is. Wikileaks certainly is in the process of releasing the 250K cables, as Wikileaks itself proudly claims. The unctuous comment about Der Spiegel's "huge fact checking department" is silly, not least of all because CPJ itself is supposed to be on top of easily checked information, instead of straining to "correct" mistakes that aren't there.
#8 Posted by Phil, CJR on Tue 11 Jan 2011 at 07:33 AM