Every time that I point out that newspapers are going away, journalists ask me where we will get accurate news. I respond that we certainly don't get accurate news from the newspapers. Last week I pointed out the numerous errors in the local media's coverage of the IRC process. Before that, I pointed out numerous errors in the media's coverage of SB 1070.
While I was writing the IRC posts, I was also following the latest mainstream media fiasco. Tell me what's wrong wrong with these two paragraphs.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords vows to return to Congress in a new book that details months of intense therapy and her emotional battle to come to terms with what happened when a gunman opened fire in front of a Tucson grocery store.
The Associated Press purchased an advanced copy of the book. It is set for release on Nov. 15.
Let's start with the second paragraph. It's a lie, pure and simple--and the papers that reprinted the stories know it. Giffords didn't sell any "advanced copy" of the book. The book is strictly embargoed so that she can control the timing of the media stories that surround it. Bookstores, however, have copies locked up in storage rooms so the copies can all be put on the shelves at the same time. Someone stole one of those copies...or perhaps stole a proof text from the publisher...and then sold it to the Associated Press.
Rather than admit that they illegally purchased and then printed excerpts from a stolen copy, the Associated Press lied and said that they "purchased an advanced copy of the book." That would be a big story by itself, but the newspapers that have contracts with the AP didn't want to blow a good story, so that meekly reprinted the lie.
What's worse is that the AP not only stole Giffords' book and disrupted the timing of her planned roll out...they botched the story and made Giffords issue a denial.
See that first sentence"Rep. Gabrielle Giffords vows to return to Congress..." It's wrong.
Giffords vows to "return", but she meant it more like "recover". She's talking about returning to good health and a normal, productive life. The AP was in such a hurry to make a scoop with their stolen copy, that they jumped the gun. And it's not like they could call her...what are they going to say. "Hey Mark, we just paid a bundle of cash for a stolen copy of Gabby's book and we know that it's strictly embargoed for another couple weeks, but we had a question about that "I shall return" line...is she vowing to return to Congress, or is she just promising that she's going to get better?"
So faced with an ambiguous quote in a stolen book and no chance to verify it, the AP did just what they teach you in the ethics classes in Journalism school...they ran with the most tantalizing, headline grabbing interpretation and then made Gabby deny it. Nice.
The Republic was then forced to print this rather awkward follow up article.
Most of the papers that printed the incorrect AP story, ran some sort of corrections. None of them disclosed the stolen book or ethical violations.
Remember that when a reporter lectures you on transparency, accuracy or ethics.
Journalistic ethics ranks right up there with legal ethics, pretty ugly, extinct life, found missing, and unbiased opinion--all of which can define today's version of reporting, but then again it's old news.
Posted by: RonJ | November 06, 2011 at 09:46 PM
The source said "the final chapter is written in Gifford's voice." So the other chapters of her book were written in someone else's voice?
Nevermind, I just read the mother of all lies "The Arizona Republic has learned..."
Posted by: Greybeard | November 06, 2011 at 10:35 PM
While I may be able to understand the reporters giving her a little space, it's almost worse to her when they run stuff and her family or spokespeople have to clarify it later.
Posted by: Stewie | November 06, 2011 at 10:56 PM
Gabby Giffords can not return to Congress since legally she has never left Congress. She did not resign her position when she was rendered unable to continue her job as congressional representative. Her district has been without representation since the attempted assassination. While her staffers are a bunch of great people, they legally do not represent the district. I don't recall the state or U.S. constitution making allowances for other sitting congressman to speak for the district either. Giffords needs to resign, recover and eventually run for office from her home in Houston.
Posted by: Matt | November 07, 2011 at 12:42 AM
What source(s) or proof do you have to support your contention AP obtained the book illegally? You have harped constantly about newspapers not sourcing their news. You have committed the same offense.
Posted by: Phil Riske | November 07, 2011 at 03:32 PM
Phil Riske apparently either didn't read the blog and/or just doesn't understand plain English. A responsible, respected, and honest media source (the AP?) claimed/admitted they "purchased an advanced copy" of Giffords' book. There are none to be had. And even if there is, it is embargoed until Nov 15th. AP should not be "reporting" on the book's contents until then. But I guess if you are low enough to steal (or use stolen goods) why would you respect an embargo date?
Posted by: RonJ | November 07, 2011 at 06:14 PM
The same MSM that, pardon the pun, jumped the gun and reported that she was indeed killed in the attack.....pathetic.
Posted by: Benson | November 08, 2011 at 01:29 AM
Maybe God wants us to meet a few wrong people before meeting the right one, so that when we finally meet the person, we will know how to be grateful.
Absence to love is what wind is to fire. It extinguishes the small; it inflames the great.
Yes.I like article.
Posted by: Christian Louboutin Outlet | November 08, 2011 at 03:21 AM
Under the Cortes standard, Giffords is unable to run for Congress. She could never get on the witness stand and testify as to who purchased her signs or have any meaningful consent to being a Representative. She would be a sham candidate if someone files for her to run.
Posted by: Falcon9 | November 09, 2011 at 09:35 AM