Regret the Error

Defend a client, become that client

We forgot to put up this correction/apology from the Montreal Gazette. It ran on Saturday (click to enlarge):

Troubled source deludes herself -- and the NYT Magazine

The New York Times published a lengthy editor's note yesterday. Actually, it published two of them; both are on this site today. This one involves a former naval construction worker who told the Times magazine that she served in Iraq, was in a Humvee that blew up, and was raped twice while serving in the Navy.

In fact, she never served in Iraq and a medal she received for service, which appeared to bolster her Iraq story, was awarded in error. The larger issue seems to be that the Navy wasn't able to come up with the correct information about her prior to publication. But were they given enough time? The editor's note says a "researcher" (fact checker) contacted the Navy "three days before the story went to press." Not exactly a lot of time to gather and evaluate the information, especially if some discrepancies emerge, which they did. A report in Air force Times (spotted by Gawker) quotes the Navy official as saying they weren't given enough time, something that the magazine disputes:

The Navy, while expressing sympathy to a woman it believes is suffering from stress, is annoyed that the Times did so little to check the woman’s story. A Times fact checker contacted Navy headquarters only three days before the magazine’s deadline. That, said Capt. Tom Van Leunen, deputy chief of information for the Navy, did not provide enough time to confirm Randall’s account of service in Iraq. Nonetheless, Van Leunen said, by deadline the Navy had provided enough information to the Times “to seriously question whether she’d been in Iraq.”
Aaron Rectica, who runs the magazine’s research desk, disputes that. He said that by deadline, the Navy had not given the Times any reason to disbelieve Randall’s claim of service in Iraq. Rectica said the Navy only told the paper that Randall’s commanders believed she’d been in Iraq but that no one in the unit had been in combat.

The magazine went back to the woman with the issues (which she disputed) and included in the story the comments from the Navy that seemed to question some of her claims. If you read the original article, it's clear that the writer had some doubts about this woman's story. As Gawker notes:

If you look at all the hedge-words and qualifiers Corbett [the writer] uses to describe Randall in the piece, it's pretty clear that she had some reservations about the woman's story. By way of introduction, she wrote of Randall's tendency to "[coexist] with her memories"—to "mostly [inch] up to them" instead of just remembering what happened.
You can see Corbett covering her tracks in the original piece, saying that, when it comes to post-traumatic stress disorder, the truth of what happened is less important than the way someone remembers it...

 

After publication, the Navy found conclusive evidence that contradicted the woman's story. Bad for the Times, bad for the Navy, bad for the source, who now looks like either a liar or someone with some serious personal issues.  Perhaps more time should have been given to the Navy to respond; or this woman should have been withheld from the article given the initial questions about her story and lack of a definitive answer from the Navy. That would have saved everyone a lot of embarrassment. The note:

The cover article in The Times Magazine on March 18 reported on women who served in Iraq, the sexual abuse that some of them endured and the struggle for all of them to reclaim their prewar lives. One of the servicewomen, Amorita Randall, a former naval construction worker, told The Times that she was in combat in Iraq in 2004 and that in one incident an explosive device blew up a Humvee she was riding in, killing the driver and leaving her with a brain injury. She also said she was raped twice while she was in the Navy.

On March 6, three days before the article went to press, a Times researcher contacted the Navy to confirm Ms. Randall’s account. There was preliminary back and forth but no detailed reply until hours before the deadline. At that time, a Navy spokesman confirmed to the researcher that Ms. Randall had won a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal with Marine Corps insignia, which was designated for those who served in a combat area, including Iraq, or in direct support of troops deployed in one. But the spokesman said there was no report of the Humvee incident or a record of Ms. Randall’s having suffered an injury in Iraq. The spokesman also said that Ms. Randall’s commander, who served in Iraq, remembered her but said that her unit was never involved in combat while it was in Iraq. Both of these statements from the Navy were included in the article. The article also reported that the Navy had no record of a sexual-assault report involving Ms. Randall.

After The Times researcher spoke with the Navy, the reporter called Ms. Randall to ask about the discrepancies. She stood by her account.

On March 12, three days after the article had gone to press, the Navy called The Times to say that it had found that Ms. Randall had never received imminent-danger pay or a combat-zone tax exemption, indicating that she was never in Iraq. Only part of her unit was sent there; Ms. Randall served with another part of it in Guam. The Navy also said that Ms. Randall was given the medal with the insignia because of a clerical error.

Based on the information that came to light after the article was printed, it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq, but may have become convinced she did. Since the article appeared, Ms. Randall herself has questioned another member of her unit, who told Ms. Randall that she was not deployed to Iraq. If The Times had learned these facts before publication, it would not have included Ms. Randall in the article. Link

Times editor's note about "resemblances" between essays

Is it plagiarism or just a remarkable coincidence? Give a read for yourself:

An essay in the Book Review on March 4, "Confessions of a Book Abuser," by Ben Schott, defended the ways people physically "mistreat" books. Readers have subsequently pointed out a number of resemblances between Schott's essay and "Never Do That to a Book," an essay on the same subject by Anne Fadiman that was part of her 1998 book "Ex Libris: Confessions of a Common Reader."

Among several thematic similarities that readers commented on are references to a system of dog-earing pages either at the top or at the bottom depending on referential purpose and to travelers who rip previously read sections from paperbacks and discard them before boarding an airplane. But the most striking resemblance occurs in the opening lines of each essay. Schott's begins: "I have to admit I was flattered when, returning to my hotel room on the shores of Lake Como, a beautiful Italian chambermaid took my hand. . . . Escorting me to the edge of the crisply made bed, the chambermaid pointed to a book on my bedside table. 'Does this belong to you?' she asked. I looked down to see a dog-eared copy of Evelyn Waugh's 'Vile Bodies' open spread-eagle, its cracked spine facing out. 'Yes,' I replied. 'Sir, that is no way to treat a book!' she declared, stalking out of the room."

Fadiman's essay begins: "When I was 11 and my brother was 13, our parents took us to Europe. At the Hôtel d'Angleterre in Copenhagen, as he had done virtually every night of his literate life, Kim left a book facedown on the bedside table. The next afternoon, he returned to find the book closed, a piece of paper inserted to mark the page, and the following note, signed by the chambermaid, resting on its cover:

    "Sir, you must never do that to a book."

Questioned about the similarities, Schott, who has recently been contributing freelance work to The Times, said that he had never read Fadiman's essay before it was brought to his attention, also by a reader of the Book Review, and suggested that the thematic resemblances were a coincidental result of the narrowness of the topic. He maintains that the encounter with the Italian chambermaid took place as he described it, in 1989, when he was 15.

    Had editors been aware of Fadiman's essay, the Book Review would not have published Schott's. Link

 

The Morien Jones apologies, cont. again

It's been a while since we saw an apology for Morien Jones, a UK man who was the subject of a string of hurtful and incorrect articles in the British press. Well, thanks to a recent court decision related to the story, we have two more to add. Read the others and get the background here.

ON 25 and 26 May 2006 we published articles concerning the unsuccessful prosecution of Lynett Burgess for indecent exposure. The articles suggested that her neighbour Mr Jones had filmed her sunbathing naked in her garden. In fact, Ms Burgess was filmed on behalf of Mr Jones by his builder on police advice. Ms Burgess was filmed walking naked on the driveway in front of Mr Jones's house and not in her own garden. We apologise to Mr Jones for the error and for any misleading impression given of Mr Jones. Link

In the article below we incorrectly accused Morien Jones of videotaping his neighbour whilst she sunbathed naked in her back garden and reporting her to the police. In fact, Mr Jones' neighbour was filmed on police advice in the context of a possible court action against her whilst she was walking naked on his driveway. We apologise to Mr Jones for our error. Link

Metro (UK) runs picture of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed instead of terror suspect

Metro would like to apologise for an error in today's edition of the newspaper (Friday 9th March).
A photograph of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed has been incorrectly used instead of a picture of terror suspect Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed.
The incorrect image accompanies a story about the Guantanamo hearings on page 21. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is suspected of masterminding the September the 11th attacks on the US. Link

According to the Guardian, the paper also ran this version of the apology in its print edition on Monday:

Metro wishes to unreservedly apologise for the mistake in Friday's paper where a photograph of his Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum was published in an article on page 21 about Guantánamo prisoners. His Highness is in no way connected to Guantánamo or its prisoners. We apologise for this mistake and for any offence it may have caused. Our thanks to the United Arab Emirates embassy in London for bringing this mistake to our attention. Sheikh Mohammed is prime minister and vice-president of the United Arab Emirates, the ruler of Dubai, and a leading figure in the world of thoroughbred horse racing and breeding.

 

"never been charged or convicted of drug offences...never been banned from the sport, nor has she ever been involved in an organised drug ring"

On December 22, 2006, The Australian published an article on page 28 titled, ''Coffa backs measures to restore order''.
In it, The Australian incorrectly stated that Ms Van Tienen had been found guilty by the Australian Sport Anti-Doping Authority of trafficking drugs and banned from participating in weightlifting for two years. Ms Van Tienen has never been charged or convicted of drug offences, has never been banned from the sport, nor has she ever been involved in an organised drug ring. The Australian apologises unreservedly for any hurt or embarrassment caused to Ms Van Tienen by the publication.

UPDATED: Editor's Note says Times reporter lent money to source

Lots of coverage yesterday over this Times Editor's Note. Former Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald (now with Portfolio) neglected to tell his editors he had lent a source, in this case a teenage boy who was being sexually exploited online, $2,000. As the Note says, "Times policy forbids paying the subjects of articles for information or interviews. A member of Mr. Berry’s family helped repay the $2,000." Eichenwald says he and his wife decided to lend the money before he knew he was writing about the teenager, and it seems perhaps he also felt that the fact it was a loan also made it less troublesome. UPDATE March 9: We're striking the references to a "loan" because Eichenwald is disputing this take on it. See below for the letter he sent to Romenesko, in which he says:

...the money was not provided for information, and was not provided to a source. The money was not a “loan” (loans are given with the expectation of repayment. There was no such expectation when the money was given.) The money was not paid in exchange for Justin meeting with me.

He told AP: "We were gambling 2,000 on the possibility of saving a kid's life...I know I did unusual things, and if I should have disclosed what I did as a private citizen in more detail, so be it. But put me through the same situation, I can't say I'd do anything differently." The Note:

An article by Kurt Eichenwald on Dec. 19, 2005, reported on a teenage boy’s sexual exploitation on the Internet, and an accompanying Reporter’s Essay by Mr. Eichenwald published on nytimes.com explained the details of his initial contact with the subject.

The essay was intended to describe how Mr. Eichenwald persuaded Justin Berry, then 18, to talk about his situation. But Mr. Eichenwald did not disclose to his editors or readers that he had sent Mr. Berry a $2,000 check. Mr. Eichenwald said he was trying to maintain contact out of concern for a young man in danger, and did not consider himself to be acting as a journalist when he sent the check.

Mr. Eichenwald explained in his essay that, at the outset, he did not identify himself to Mr. Berry as a reporter. After they met in person, but before he decided that he wanted to write an article, Mr. Eichenwald said he told the youth that the money would have to be returned. Times policy forbids paying the subjects of articles for information or interviews. A member of Mr. Berry’s family helped repay the $2,000.

The check emerged as part of a criminal proceeding involving Mr. Berry in which a Michigan man is charged with criminal sexual conduct, enticing a minor to commit immoral acts and distributing child pornography. The trial began yesterday.

The check should have been disclosed to editors and readers, like the other actions on the youth’s behalf that Mr. Eichenwald, who left The Times last fall, described in his article and essay. (Go to Article) (Go to Essay)

UPDATE March 9: Eichenwald sent a strongly-worded letter to Romenesko that says, in part:

"...we have is journalist after journalist writing stories about what they *think* happened. (I will get to the abjectly false depiction of my sworn testimony by Debbie Nathan in a moment.) And the evolution is fast – we start with an editor’s note that is accurate, but misleading. That then becomes reinterpreted into a false accusation – that I paid a source for information, that I lent a source money, that I engaged in checkbook journalism – that is repeated ad infinitum. That false accusation then spins out of control, with “reporters” suggesting that I engaged in all sorts of illegal and immoral acts. The details mentioned in the stories get fuzzier and more inaccurate..."

He says he is already pursuing one libel action and condemns his fellow journalists for their inaccurate work. "It is quite an experience to be on the receiving end of journalism," he writes. "It is now abundantly clear to me why our profession has such an ungodly reputation among the public. The first story says 'cat.' The second says 'tiger.' And the third says 'office building.' And all on the basis of no reporting..."
Like those first sentences, the letter speaks a lot of larger issues about accuracy in reporting:

"In the past few days, I have learned that most reporters are not interested in details. So, for the community in general, I will explain this in simple bullet points. For those who actually want to do their jobs, I am ordering a copy of my sworn testimony, which explains every detail. Through my lawyer, I will demand corrections from anyone who deviates from these facts unless they have additional reporting to support their deviation; I will no longer be a victim of people’s unreported “interpretations."

Read the letter for his point-by-point explanation and rebuttal.

UPDATED: Plagiarism accusation hits Boston Globe columnist

A Boston Globe sports columnist has been accused of plagiarism by coldhardfootballfacts.com. The paper says it is looking into the allegations. Editor & Publisher has a story up about it, and here is the post from coldhardfootballfacts.com. E&P:

Similarities between a Sunday story by a Boston Globe sportswriter and a piece written a week earlier by a writer at the News Tribune of Tacoma, Wash., have prompted a review by the Globe's top sports editor.
"We are aware of the complaint and we are looking into it," said Joe Sullivan, Globe assistant managing editor/sports. "Someone pointed it out to me and we are looking into it."
First reported by the web site www.coldhardfootballfacts.com, the allegations concern the "Football Notes" column of Globe sportswriter Ron Borges. The March 4 column includes several passages that appear similar, or in some cases identical, to a Feb. 25 story by the News Tribune's Mike Sando.
Both stories were related to the potential trade of Seattle Seahawks receiver Darrell Jackson, with Borges noting the New England Patriots' possible interest.
Coldhardfootballfacts.com posted several passages from both stories that offer grounds for concern...

Read them here. UPDATE March 6: The paper has suspended him for two weeks, though it hasn't said whether it looked at his previous work to see if this was an isolated incident. It needs to look at his previous work. From the Globe's article about his suspension:

The Boston Globe yesterday suspended without pay for two months a veteran sports reporter, Ron Borges, after allegations that he had plagiarized a portion of a football column from another sportswriter.
The Globe's editor, Martin Baron, said Borges had included in his "Football notes" column last Sunday material written by a reporter for the News Tribune of Tacoma.
"The Globe does not tolerate plagiarism," Baron said in a statement. "Extensive passages written by the Tacoma reporter were used verbatim in the column by Borges, and that is prohibited."
Borges will also be barred from broadcast appearances over the next two months, Baron said...

UPDATE March 7: The paper published this brief Editor's Note:

Editor's note: The Football notes column by Ron Borges in Sunday's Sports section contained verbatim passages from a story previously published by The News Tribune of Tacoma, Wash., a violation of Globe policy. Borges has been suspended without pay for two months. Story.

Salon story removes details "with the potential to compromise U.S. troops" in Afghanistan

The Feb. 27 story "Watching Afghanistan Fall" contained several details with the potential to compromise U.S. troops in the region.   These details have been removed. Link

Another man misidentified as terrorism suspect

Abdul Rauf - an apology. In an article headlined Father of airline attack suspects is held in Pakistan, page 7, August 21 2006, we wrongly reported that Mr Abdul Rauf had been arrested in Pakistan and was being questioned over his involvement with the charity Crescent Relief in connection with the alleged conspiracy to attack planes leaving the UK for America. Mr Rauf assures us, and we fully accept, that he has never been complicit in any terrorist activity. Furthermore, we accept that Mr Rauf has never been questioned, let alone detained or arrested, in connection with any such matters. We apologise to him for the distress and embarrassment caused. Link

In two articles following the alleged airline plot last year (August 19 and 29, 2006) we reported that there was a Charity Commission inquiry into a charity called Crescent Relief, of which we said Mr Abdul Rauf was a founder. Those articles may have been understood to suggest, wrongly, that Mr Rauf was suspected of using the charity as a front to fund terrorist activities. Mr Rauf is not and has not been under any such suspicion.

In our August 19 article we also stated, wrongly, that Mr Rauf had been detained in Islamabad before boarding a flight to Birmingham. He was not so detained. Mr Rauf assures us, and we fully accept, that he has never been complicit in any terrorist activity. We apologise to Mr Rauf for the distress and embarrassment caused by our articles. Link

More here.