Update, 11/11, 1:09 p.m.: Kamran Pasha has posted a reply in the comments section below.
One of the cardinal rules of the news business is: don’t run with material you can’t confirm. But another is: when big news breaks, don’t get left behind. Sometimes, of course, those rules come into conflict, creating hairy decisions for news organizations. Last week’s mass shooting at Fort Hood—simultaneously a national tragedy and a competitive event among journalists—was one of those times.
There’s no way of knowing how often, in the wake of the shooting, normal journalistic rules surrounding sourcing and attribution were bent or broken in pursuit of a unique angle. But one such example that stands out—less for the egregiousness of the decision than for how clearly it was spelled out—appears in an article that was first published on the Web Sunday by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, a McClatchy paper. Written by reporter Barry Shlachter* and headlined “More evidence that Fort Hood gunman held radical beliefs,” the story devotes its first 300 words to a subject many other press accounts were noting—Nidal Malik Hasan’s connections to a Falls Church mosque where Anwar Al-Awlaki, who has been described as a radical imam, once served. But about halfway through, the story shifts:
Contrary to numerous reports that Hasan was a brooding loner in Killeen, a more detailed picture of Hasan has surfaced that said he had at least one close friend, an Army officer who had converted in Islam several years ago. They had worshiped through the night together during the final days of Ramadan, the Muslim fasting holiday.
Tracking down a heretofore-unreported “close friend” of Hasan’s sounds like an impressive scooplet, especially if it promises a more complete picture of the shooter. But what’s up with the oddly roundabout locution (“a more detailed picture… that said he had”)? Some explanation arrives in the next paragraphs:
Kamran Pasha, a Pakistani-American novelist, quoted the Fort Hood officer as saying he befriended the Army psychiatrist, prayed side by side with him hours before Thursday’s mass killings and had once challenged Hasan’s view that Islam condoned suicide bombings.
…The officer, a 22-year Army veteran, declined to be identified or speak to reporters because of his past work in special operations in Iraq, Pasha said. No independent corroboration could be made Sunday.
The following is what the officer purportedly told of his relationship with Hasan, according to Pasha:
In other words, the Star-Telegram hadn’t actually tracked down a close friend of Hasan’s—rather, it had found a novelist who said he had spoken to this unidentified friend, and had decided that, at least in this case, a bit of journalistic telephone passed muster.
This wasn’t the first time Pasha’s account had reached the public. The novelist had written about his conversations with the unnamed officer in a lengthy post that appeared at both his blog and at The Huffington Post. Over the weekend, The Christian Science Monitor referenced that post in its coverage, and the British paper The Daily Telegraph used material from Pasha in its reporting.
But in this instance, the Star-Telegram seems to have gone farther than other American publications in running with uncorroborated, secondhand information. The paper’s reasoning behind its decision is unknown—Shlachter declined to speak on the record, and his editors did not immediately respond to requests for comment—but it’s hard to imagine that this is standard practice. There are good reasons, after all, that newspapers don’t regularly run with unverified material, which run from the outlandish (Could Pasha have been fabricating this unnamed officer?) to the more prosaic (Is there reason to be skeptical of Hasan’s friend’s credibility? How might his words have been distorted in the retelling? Would his account have changed if reporters had been able to interview him directly?) And while the paper was admirably upfront about its inability to confirm what it was reporting, disclosure does not sweep away these concerns.
- 1
- 2
"It may turn out, in this case, that the departure from normal journalistic standards did not result in inaccuracy—certainly, the picture painted by the Star-Telegram story jibes with the emerging portrait of a deeply troubled individual who was driven, at least in part, by extreme religious beliefs. It may even, in a modest way, have deepened our understanding of Hasan.Still, there’s something troubling in the paper’s choice... ... Much of the value of traditional news organizations now lies in the ability to organize and contextualize this stream of information"
Now THIS is damned hoot!...
So "accuracy" is "departure" from some mythological "normal journalistic standards"?.... And the job of the press is not to "report" the news, but instead to "filter", "organize" and "contextualize" the news so that readers don't have to bother with interpreting the facts for themselves....
What a crock of dangerous nonsense...
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 10 Nov 2009 at 08:11 PM
Meanwhile every major news outlet is running with a narrative - conjured out of thin air - that Hasan was a victim of PTSD.
Apparently that's just fine with the folks at CJR. After all, it's well known that a symptom of PTSD is to yell "Allahu Akbar!" and kill US soldiers. I'm sure it happens all the time.
#2 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 10 Nov 2009 at 10:04 PM
As tough as I've been on you for being too soft on the journalistic excesses related to this story, Greg, I'll say kudos to you for the good job you've done with this piece. Nice analysis and thanks for looking beyond the surface of this sourcing atrocity. I hope you'll do the same with the Washington Post, who often commits the same kind of dishonesty as we see here. You've done a great job here. More of this, please!
#3 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 11 Nov 2009 at 07:56 AM
I've got news for you overinflated journos...
Journalism is a trade, not a profession.
Barbers are professionals. Plumbers are professionals. Lawyers are professionals. All of these professionals are specially trained, examined, licensed and regulated by their peers.
Anybody who can type English at a tenth grade level can be a NY Times journalist. Observe, verfiy, report, repeat... It's not rocket science. It's bricklaying. Hop to it.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 11 Nov 2009 at 10:23 AM
I recently wrote an article for the Huffington Post about a Muslim soldier who knew Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter at Fort Hood. My interview with the soldier, who requested anonymity, was referenced by several news sources, including the Christian Science Monitor, the Daily Telegraph and the Fort Worth Star Telegram.
Columbia Journalism Review has suggested that the reporter for the Star Telegram departed from appropriate journalistic practices by quoting my interview without being unable to independently confirm the soldier's existence. As a former journalist myself, I disagree with this perspective and believe that the Star Telegram reporter, Barry Shlachter, acted with integrity and professionalism.
Mr. Shlachter disclosed in the article that he was quoting my unnamed source and had not been able to speak with him directly. He used careful language to clarify that he had not independently corroborated my account by adding the word "purportedly" when referencing what I claimed the soldier had said.
I worked for several years as a reporter in New York City for Knight Ridder and other news groups. I remain a member of the South Asian Journalists Association, which is led by members of the Columbia Journalism School community such as Prof. Sree Sreenivasan. I believe that it is critical for reporters to weigh issues of credibility when deciding whether to run information that has not been corroborated independently.
Mr. Shlachter had to weigh my personal credibility in deciding whether to reference my unnamed source. Aside from being a published novelist, I am an established film and television producer in Hollywood, having worked for NBC, Warner Brothers and Showtime Networks, and have been interviewed regularly by major news sources for my perspectives as a Muslim in the media. I have also been a regular writer for the Huffington Post for nearly nine months. So I am someone with a public persona who has a stake in maintaining credibility.
And I also broke news in my interview, subsequently confirmed, that Major Hasan attended a mosque led by a radical Yemeni imam Anwar al-Awlaki. You reference that other media sources were also reporting the connection to Al-Awlaki. But as far as I am aware, my Huffington Post article published on Friday, November 6, was the first mention of the connection between Major Hasan and Al-Awlaki. When Mr. Shlachter contacted me over the weekend, my information had been confirmed by other sources, adding substantial likelihood that I was not fabricating the interview with the soldier who knew Major Hasan.
Mr. Shlachter weighed my credentials as well as the content of what I reported and decided to make the broader public aware of my perspective, with specific caveats about his inability to confirm all aspects of my account. And I would have done the same. I hope that as the profession of journalism continues to evolve in a world of rapid technological change and new media connectivity, reporters will not lose the ability to trust their gut instincts to keep the public informed.
#5 Posted by Kamran Pasha, CJR on Wed 11 Nov 2009 at 01:03 PM
The original headline of this story was
"The Fort Hood Massacre: Be first or be right? Greg Marx measures the ripples of a story that a Texas paper ran with secondhand info that turns out to be wrong"
Then, later, the story is "updated" to change the headline to say the exact opposite, that the second-hand info IS accurate.
So maybe in your next column, you can tackle another one of the "cardinal rules" of journalism: don't lie to your readers by trying to disguise a correction as an update.
Is this what you guys are teaching journalism students? No wonder journalism is on life support.
#6 Posted by L. Browning, CJR on Wed 11 Nov 2009 at 04:02 PM
If I understand what you are saying, the Christian Science Monitor, the Daily Telegraph, and the Fort Worth Star Telegram all reported on Mr. Pasha's story, and all disclosed that it was uncorroborated.
After that, you say that "the Star-Telegram seems to have gone farther than other American publications in running with uncorroborated, secondhand information" and editorialize that "value of traditional news organizations . . . also rests in maintaining old-fashioned rules about what’s “fit to print”—even, or especially, when they are inconvenient."
Are you saying that American publications have different rules about when it is acceptable to run an uncorroborated interview from British publications? (Plus whatever the CSM is.) It would be nice to include a source or two identifying what the American rules are, so that the rest of us can consider them.
Thanks!
#7 Posted by J Mann, CJR on Wed 11 Nov 2009 at 04:38 PM
It seems Mr. Marx may have broken his own "rule".
#8 Posted by Fred, CJR on Wed 11 Nov 2009 at 05:05 PM
@L. Browning,
The original headline you're referring to came from an email blast, and it was incorrect, owing to an internal miscommunication. We addressed that error with a subsequent email blast noting the error. If you got the first, you should have received the second.
The headline on this page has not changed since the story was posted. The only changes to the body are the update at the top to note Kamran Pasha's comment, and a correction in the spelling of the reporter's last name (The byline was misspelled in the McClatchy DC version of the story, where I first saw it.)
#9 Posted by greg marx, CJR on Wed 11 Nov 2009 at 05:33 PM
At least the Star-Telegram gave some corroborating information: the name of the source of the second-hand quote, and some identifying traits of the unnamed original source.
Compare this to the endless unidentified sources in the NYT: "an administration source," "a senior intelligence official," "a high-ranking congressional staffer," etc. At best, these source are trying giving selective information to shape a story, while at worst, they don't even exist, something I suspect is increasingly true.
Why go to the trouble of reporting a story, when you can just give your editors the story they want by quoting the usual "unnamed sources?"
#10 Posted by Joe Y, CJR on Wed 11 Nov 2009 at 05:54 PM
With all due respect, Mr/Ms. Pasha, as a news consumer I don't want reporters to "trust their gut instincts to keep the public informed." I want them to meet basic professional standards with respect to their sources and confirming a story and disclosure. I want them to give me, the audience, an opportunity to judge the veracity of the account myself.
Third-hand accounts are rumor-mongering. I commend you for coming forward with additional information, but even now, how do we know that your unnamed source is reliable? I don't doubt that this unnamed Muslim soldier told you what you claim he told you, but how do you know he was telling the truth? How do WE know he told you the truth and the complete truth? Did you check out this source's story? What was his motive in talking to you? Why won't he come forward?
You seem to think that just because your blog post was referenced by "several news sources," that somehow absolves you and Mr. Schlachter of confirming the story. It doesn't. In fact, it obligates you further. You seem to think that since you worked as a reporter, news consumers should automatically believe your second-hand account. Speaking for myself, I do not. Being a published novelist, working for NBC, Warner Brothers and Showtime actually DECREASES your credibility, Mr./Ms. Pasha. I don't automatically confer credibility on the basis of someone's "public persona." That would be foolish of me, wouldn't it? You see my difficulty, don't you?
I believe that it is critical for reporters to weigh issues of credibility when deciding whether to run information that has not been corroborated independently.
Herein lies the problem. The reporter may have weighed YOUR credibility, which he did not share with his readers, but how can he weigh the credibility of your source third-hand? He cannot, can he?
This information was not so crucial that it had to be rushed to press without corroboration. The reporter and his editor did that because it was a "scoop" and an irresponsible one. It was contemptuous of the reading audience and didn't meet even the basic standards of professional journalism, in my view.
#11 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 11 Nov 2009 at 06:53 PM
What JLD said.
Where is your assessment of all those stories about a new -- invented for the occasion -- mitigating circumstance for mass murder: pre-traumatic stress syndrome?
Or, how about tackling the chief of staff of the Army for worrying about "backlash"? How many reporters covering that asked him to give examples of backlash in America against Muslims (in or out of uniform) since Sept. 11, 2001?
So we have three stories. Two are made up out of whole cloth and everybody knows it, and one is a single-source story. Which one does Marx go after?
The most worthy of the three.
#12 Posted by Harry Eagar, CJR on Wed 11 Nov 2009 at 08:28 PM
James, I think you're being rather rude to Mr. Pasha who - unlike you or I - is gracious enough to come here under his own name and reveal detailed personal info.
And your contention that his scoop adding nothing seems particularly dishonest. The fact that Hasan supports suicide bombers or attended the same mosque as the 9 11 perpetrators is indeed crucial news. How could it not be?
Still you make a good point about anonymous sources. People like Seymour Hersh have made a career out of using them, with little criticism from the left. I'd like to see much less of them, I agree.
I also agree that sources should be judged by their objectivity (though perhaps being not as direct and rude as you were). Having seen that CJR is staffed with left-wing ideologues, I certainly take anything coming from a Columbia-trained journalist to be suspect. The fact that the New York Times reporters refused to attend Bush's correspondents' dinner but threw a party to celebrate Obama's election speaks volumes about their own lack of objectivity.
No wonder people don't trust the news!
#13 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 11 Nov 2009 at 09:39 PM
"unfiltered" accounts? Who is in charge of "filtering" news accounts?
#14 Posted by Karen, CJR on Wed 11 Nov 2009 at 11:02 PM
"Be first or be right?" More like "Be superior, show your posterior."
#15 Posted by Jim Treacher, CJR on Thu 12 Nov 2009 at 01:31 AM
Dear James,
I must fundamentally disagree with your position. If you do not believe that reporters use information that they cannot corroborate personally, then you are unaware of how journalism actually works. As others have pointed out here, investigative journalists such as Seymour Hersh have made an entire career around such reportage. The reason they are respected and not treated as gossip-mongers is that they are seen has having good judgment and an excellent track record with regard to the sources they trust.
As for your personal comments on my credibility, again I am at a loss to understand why you would say that someone who is an established public figure whose reputation is on the line is not a credible source. My resume suggests that I an certainly more credible to talk about Muslim affairs than the vast majority of unnamed sources and armchair commentators that many reporters rely on in covering the Muslim community. Because I am one of the few Muslims established at this level in Western media, I have access to people in the Islamic community that others do not. My own source refused to talk to other reporters because he felt he could trust that I did not have an anti-Muslim agenda and that I would not slant his words to denigrate the entire Muslim community. My "public persona" which you deride is exactly the reason this soldier trusted me to tell his story.
As for the credibility of my own source, he contacted me earlier this year from Fort Hood and I had developed a dialogue with him over the past several months on issues about Muslims in the military. So when he called me after the Fort Hood shootings, I already trusted and respected his opinion. This was all revealed in my Huffington Post piece, if you would take the time to read it. I have subsequently confirmed that my source is in contact with government investigators and sharing the details of his relationship with Dr. Hasan.
As for whether the information I provided was crucial, I believe you are being disingenuous. I broke the news of the relationship between Dr. Hasan and radical imam Al-Awlaki. I revealed Hasan's anti-Semitism, comments he appeared to make only to other Muslims who he thought were sympathetic. And his support for the Taliban and suicide bombers is all relevant to his motivations. If this information is not considered news, then I don't know what is.
Perhaps you would have chosen to ignore my Huffington Post article. That is your prerogative. Several news sources looked at all the pieces of the puzzle and went with it, while noting their own inability to confirm every aspect of what I revealed. If reporters did not follow their "gut instincts" (which you deride), then Woodward and Bernstein would never have broken Watergate. Personally I wish more journalists had used their "gut instincts" during the buildup to the Iraq War, rather than serve as stenographers for politicians. My 60-year-old mother knew that half the things she was reading about Saddam Hussein in the papers or hearing on television news made no sense. I am sure that many professional reporters felt the same, but chose to ignore their gut instincts that they were being lied to by proponents of the war. It is a tragedy for all of us that they chose to follow the flock and swallow other people's opinions about what constituted proper journalism.
Sincerely,
Kamran Pasha
#16 Posted by Kamran Pasha, CJR on Thu 12 Nov 2009 at 02:40 AM
I am flabbergasted by the fact that CJR sent me an email blast about "uncorroborated" information by the Star-Telegram reporter... then sent me another one about how that was wrong.
As for Kamran, you go! Keep on doing what you do, insha'llah, longer than the poor critics who have neither the skill or talent to do what you do. Cheers!
-A.Y.
#17 Posted by Antonio Y., CJR on Thu 12 Nov 2009 at 03:59 AM
Mr./Ms. Pasha,
I very much appreciate this discussion, and thank you for coming forward with clarification about your source. I will reiterate that this piece and my comments with respect to sourcing were referring to the reporter's Star-Telegram piece (and to general sourcing issues in the media) and not to you personally. I'd like to separate the issue of your personal credibility from the sourcing in the actual news story.
Thank you for the additional explanation and information about your source. Your clarification lends more credibility to what your source told you, and to you personally. This kind of information about the source and his motivation for speaking to you, and your personal assessment of his credibility, is exactly the point I am making. Had the reporter included some of that information to the reader, it would have been helpful initially in assessing the validity of the story. The reader of the Star-Telegram piece was not given the opportunity to read your blog post, but was expected to accept third-hand sourcing.
My only point about your credibility is that nobody in the major news media, or with a "public persona," should be automatically accorded credibility on that basis alone. If I said that too harshly, then I apologize. It wasn't my intention to deride your credibility. Working for NBC puts you in the company of such un-credible reporters as Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, David Gregory, and the late Tim Russert, all purveyors and repeaters of Washington gossip, half-truths, and distortions based upon anonymous and third-hand sourcing. It should be no surprise that any news consumer who has been paying attention would be reluctant to accept this kind of sourcing as acceptable or valid.
I believe that you have misunderstood my contention that it didn't seem necessary to rush to print with this "scoop." The information you obtained from this source IS important and newsworthy and it adds an important dimension to the story. I tried to make the point -- and I apparently made it badly -- that the reporter could very well have taken the time to get more information on the sourcing before he went to press, that it wasn't necessary to rush to print THAT DAY.
And finally, I think we are making the same point in different ways:
I wish more journalists had used their "gut instincts" during the buildup to the Iraq War, rather than serve as stenographers for politicians. ... It is a tragedy for all of us that they chose to follow the flock and swallow other people's opinions about what constituted proper journalism.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, and it is an important reason why I have become extremely skeptical of the credibility of reporters in the major news media. It is the main reason why I contend that they are not to be believed or accorded credibility on the basis of their "public persona." Because they failed so badly at that time, they have destroyed their credibility, and there has as yet been no accountability for that. I don't call it "going with their gut instinct" I call it adhering to basic professional standards of journalism. That is exactly what they have failed to do, and until there is some accountability, I see no reason NOT to be skeptical of what they report, particularly with anonymous and third-hand sourcing.
Again, thank you for the dialogue, and your gracious attention to my concerns.
#18 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 12 Nov 2009 at 08:47 AM
For other readers, here is the link to Mr. Pasha's (is that correct?) excellent blog post on Huffington:
Kamran Pasha: A Muslim Soldier's View from Fort Hood
Recommended reading.
#19 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 12 Nov 2009 at 09:37 AM
Mr Greg Marx - you are pathetic - more to be pitied than despised.
#20 Posted by Simon, CJR on Thu 12 Nov 2009 at 06:31 PM
#21 Posted by JSchuler, CJR on Fri 13 Nov 2009 at 01:43 AM
This is an old article but true. Its all about Taqiyya and Kitman: The role of Deception in Islamic Terrorism
This is why the Islamist machine goes into high gear lying.
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/25320
#22 Posted by Revnant Dream, CJR on Fri 13 Nov 2009 at 03:20 AM
As I understand the essence of this article, once again the "Mainstream Media" has conspired (in the original metaphorical sense of breathing together) to alter the truth and spin a portrait of Hasan as pathetic victim. This a good example of how a nation drinks metaphorical poison and dies. The Romans eventually deserted their central government because it was incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and expensive. The germanic barbarians offered a better deal.
#23 Posted by C. H. Booker, CJR on Fri 13 Nov 2009 at 03:20 AM
At some point it will become so glaringly obvious that this was a religiously motivated terrorist attack that even the media will begin to notice.
Hell, they might even notice that is was Islam.
#24 Posted by Stan, CJR on Fri 13 Nov 2009 at 09:28 AM
I remember how much digging and criticizing you did on the Dan Rather Texas Air National Guard scandal...oh wait, it was two blogs that did that. I went to one of Columbia's professional grad schools. I cannot say I am proud of that, and would discourage my children from going there if their academics otherwise made it possible.
#25 Posted by lazlo toth, CJR on Fri 13 Nov 2009 at 09:53 AM
I agree with my good friend Lazlo Toth. God bless you all!
#26 Posted by Father Guido Sarducci, CJR on Fri 13 Nov 2009 at 10:08 AM
There are errors of omission then there are errors of just plain sloth. For example, a Muslim ran some people down in Rochester,NY. No doubt it journalists will randomly decide it was just mental illness rather than doing some investigation whether this Muslim had radical connections and decided to "blow off jihadist steam" by running people down.
#27 Posted by Jim James, CJR on Fri 13 Nov 2009 at 02:37 PM
When i was in the business of hiring young journalists, any mention of J-school saw the application filed immediately in the trash. The nonsense above pretty much explains why.
Kids, you wanna get into journalism? Well go drive a truck for a while, get a law degree, read Orwell's essays over and over, study John McPhee. Then, when some guy in all-white Afghani martydrom regalia yells Allahu Akbar and starts shooting, you'll now he's a homicidal jihadist and can report as much.
The "qualified" Columbia types can meanwhile go looking for a palliative explanation, one that sits comfortably with their finely-tuned perceptions of the way the world ought to be.
#28 Posted by Roger f, CJR on Sun 15 Nov 2009 at 04:09 AM
wow so many of you fail at reading comprehension! i suppose you also think belichick was an idiot for going for it on 4th down. also mr pasha , with all due respect i dont think the analogy works very well between being arguing for a little more cautioun (and i'm not even saying greg is right) in the reporting of a just-breaking story versus being too cautious in covering something over months/years like the iraq war buildup .
#29 Posted by Jon, CJR on Tue 17 Nov 2009 at 03:57 PM