More "verifying and editing" needed -- WaPo Mess

by nukegingrich | February 9, 2007 at 04:49 pm
348 views | 0 Recommendations | 2 comments

Here is the correction that the Washington Post has posted online, after the damage had been done by their Front page article about the Pentagon's IG report on Undersecdef Douglas Feith.

A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith's office: Levin's report refers to an "alternative intelligence assessment process" developed in that office, while the inspector general's report states that the office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

The WaPo has a mess............this is a massive failure of editing.

At the NYT, Pinch is not sure if the Grey Lady will be around in 5 years.....he's losing money hand over fist, and he doesn't see the correlation between sloppy editing and the red ink.

Now, AP is looking to partner up with internet powerhouse NowPublic.com ....

And NP's verification and editing processes are questioned?

Pot. meet. kettle.


Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
publicreader

Good point about the editing and verifying at the Post. Could you clarify for me who is questioning NP's editing and verification processes? I am missing something here.

0
nukegingrich

A comment from AP's Jim Kennedy kind of rubbed me the wrong way.  I may have read more into it than was there.

Here is the link to the article 

here is the quote:

AP editors will work with NowPublic.com staff and contributors to
ensure the content is real and accurate, said Jim Kennedy, AP's vice
president and director of strategic planning.

"We're not just
going to take content directly from the contributors and put it on the
wire," he said. "We're going to edit and verify it just like we would
any other contribution."

Like I said, the comment raised my hackles.  The last few years have been so contentious that reading a supposedly straight news story requires a level of parsing, and questioning that shouldn't be necessary in stories by an impartial media.  And AP's stories are no exception.

 

 

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from