Spencer Ackerman's Self-Correction: This Is How Stories Should Be Retracted

Spencer Ackerman is a friend of mine and a reporter whose expertise and ecumenical fairness are resources I've come to trust. He's also demonstrated a hardcore willingness to get his body to where the news is happening -- whether its simply trooping out to an obscure but important Congressional hearing, or strapping on the body armor to head to FOB Salerno in Afghanistan.

Yesterday, Ackerman reported out a story about a teleconference between U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry and the National Security Council, an account predicated on the word of a single source, which subsequently came undone as new facts came to the fore.

The reason Ackerman will continue to be a trusted reporter, in my view, is because when you have to retract a story, you should do it like this:

My original source for the post stands by the account provided. The individual, a National Security Council staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity, has provided truthful and verified information on past stories, and so I trusted the source for this one. Elements of the account have been subsequently borne out: yesterday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that President Obama will ask his Afghanistan-Pakistan advisers to provide him with an exit strategy for the eight-year war, which is congruent with but not identical to my source's information that Obama has asked the team to derive timetables for troop withdrawal.

But there are greater problems with the post. For one, the source was not actually present for the video teleconference that is the post's central scene, and passed information to me second-hand. Furthermore, not only has the White House's Tommy Vietor denied, on the record, that Ambassador Karl Eikenberry participated in a video teleconference yesterday morning, but the other two individuals I named as being present for the meeting -- the inspector generals for Iraq and Afghanistan -- have, through representatives, denied being present. I cannot subsequently stand by this account.

From the start, the post should have a) more clearly indicated that my source wasn't present at the meeting; b) more clearly indicated that the account provided was single-sourced; and c) verified the information provided before publication. My enthusiasm for a hot story outpaced my professional judgment. For that I take full responsibility, retract the story and issue a full apology for its publication.

It's a pretty rare thing for a reporter to offer a thorough itemization of all the errors of a story and how they came about, let alone an admission that "enthusiasm for a hot story outpaced my professional judgment." Yet, this should be the standard.

Additionally, as far as I can tell, Ackerman returned to all of the venues where he distributed his original, and distributed the retraction, ensuring that it would have equal dissemination.

I'd also note that over at the Washington Independent, the original story remains, reformatted to appear with the original text struck through. This is a unique feature of online journalism. Rather than allowing a factual mistake to drop into the memory hole, it remains available for readers. More importantly, it remains a part of the writer's body of work. I've always admired this tradition. It breeds a certain amount of humility, and it reminds us that the richness of our experience is often most strongly derived from our mistakes.

RELATED:
A Retraction of My Eikenberry Post [The Washington Independent]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[Matt Osborne - Huffpost Blogger]

A good correction is the absolute minimum standard to be called a "journalist," IMHO. No one likes doing corrections but they are absolutely necessary. A reporter who never, ever makes a correction is not perfect at all, but a sloppy hack.

[VirginiaJeff]

Excellent

[mostly amused]

You do see strike over in tech forums. You are right that news should follow suit.

[sanaaiman]

the best example of news integrity i've seen all week.

[tel8034]

I think you mean a decade.

[Matrsnot]

I wonder why every statement made by your emperor is not dealt with in this way. The continual lies and misdirection are outrageous.

[dzent1]

Your opinion is so obviously right-slanting that it matters not.

[Robert Shea]

This is a real reporter/journalist with integrity to burn. He's in there with Michael Ware, Richard Engel, Christiane Amanpour.
That sets him apart from the infotainers who pose as journalists, starting with the "anchors" on the TV nets and of course the cable bloviators.

[cachukis]

Wow. Jason and colleagues: noted.

[jrmarsh]

Wouldn't that be "redacted"?

[MIVOTE]

Redacted is when you can't read the names, etc. or parts of the document for anonymity. He in this case retracted and drew a line through it, but one could still read what it said.

[goodog]

All single sources should be corroborated or seriously considered to be rumor that should be left out of the story until it can be substantiated.

Also, anonymous sources should be the exception, not the rule. We went to Iraq on anonymous sources. The press needs to reform this heavily unremitting reliance on them.

If you're source won't go on record, it's because they know you'll give in. You should question why they don't want to attach their name to what they're saying. That it's a sensitive subject is NOT a good enough reason, but it's THE most often offered excuse for passing on gossip and rumors s news.

[fairplaystacy]

Ha ha! who does "c" anymore
c) verified the information provided before publication.

We're living in the new era that Rumsfeld ushered in by saying, "The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence."

This is the rocket fueled logic, that when applied to journalism permits me to say that:

Person X has not been identified as a suspect, and has not made himself available for comment.

It allows the news media to run with a story that a black man attacked a white McCain campaign worker, carving a backwards "B" into her cheek while the police, doubting the story from the very beginning, did not comment until their investigation had proven that she was lying. This occurring only a few days before the national Presidential elections, to race bait the outcome.

When Americans prove to be smarter than what we are taken for, it's definitely a great day to be American. Unfortunately, lately these days are becoming rare.

[goodog]

Exactly, the press can find someone to say anything, and they've decided that the fact that someone will makes it worthy of reporting as news.

It doesn't.

c) verified the information provided before publication, has become the exception, not the rule.

The press has gradually become a vast rumor mongering network, ever since A Current Affair, Inside Edition, and Hard Copy hit the airways in the late '80s.

Competing withTrash like that quickly inured too many good news outlets to BeckLimbaughDrudge and the rest of the insHannity, compromising media as a whole.

The bogus WMD and invasion of Iraq is their paramount accomplishment, but there will be more.

[fairplaystacy]

Funny you should bring up A Current Affair. That's Fox territory. Roger Ailes the head of Fox News canceled it! But probably because he was thinking, I can combine this type of programming with a smidge of traditional journalism, blend the whole thing up and create a whole new way of presenting...uh,,, any and everything we feel like putting out there....

yeah....that's the ticket! It'll be big baby!

[ReMarker]

Submitting unvarified information as "news" is ok as long as you correct the information as needed?

Hmm, how to have confidence in "news" being factual if that is the standard?

As important as "corrections" are, it is more important to know "news" consumers don't moniter news sources or stories 24/7, so learning the "corrections" may not be a part of the consumer's knowledge base.

I applaud the courage of anyone willing to put themselves in harm's way for the greater good, but to allow one's"enthusiasm for a hot story to outpace (one's) professional judgement" seems to trump the "courage" factor, because of selfishness.

It's like catching a trusted person in a lie. Reclaiming that trust does not happen with an admission of guilt. However, "admission" is the first, necessary step in the long journey back to being trustworthy.

I wish your friend well.

[MakeAWish]

Thanks Jason. Continue on!

[wattnot]

I understand that scholars and researchers have learned as much or more about literary composition at its best by studying the workbooks of James Joyce, where the re-re-re-r­e-writings demonstrate the creative process in great detail, and serve also to show that genius, as Beethoven said, is the taking of infinite pains. Unfortunately similar lessons cannot be learned from Mozart, whose music seemed to flow out of his head in final form. Mr Ackerman probably published his retraction as a matter of conscience, but he will benefit from an increased future readership for doing it in the way he did.

[jws2346]

Holy mackerel, a for real, honest news correspondent. Unfortunately they are a rare breed today. Thanks Spencer Ackerman

[BLBass]

The strikethrough retraction is also an important journalistic standard; without it, there is no real "taking responsibility" for one's errors. (Hannity, O'Reilly, Dobbs, et al. would be well advised to pay attention to what real journalism looks like!)

Several years ago I was a student teacher for 3rd grade math classes, and I had a bugger of a time convincing the students not to waste time/effort on erasing errors but rather to simply x them out and show ALL their work. (One reason I switched to exclusively using pens a long time ago, by the way).

It's the same story with journalism. Not only is it easier and more transparent than taking down a story and destroying all record of its publication, but the "partial credit" idea applies as well. The reporting was done, the attribution should be there whether or not the story was flawless, and Spencer's forthright retraction was indeed the standard by which others should be judged.

[Octoberluna]

lol OT - I always hated when told to "show my work" in math class, I looked at the problem and wrote the answer...then the teacher wants more scribbled on the page? Why? IS the answer wrong? no...is it in the back of the book? no then if the answer is right and it was obvious to me then why do you need any more proof that I figured it out myself? OT over

[spottery2k]

I've heard that argument a lot, and actually made the same rationalization when i was in school. But I came to realize that the objective in math class was not merely to get the right answer as it was to show that you understood the concepts presented in a given chapter and the only way to do that is to lay out the steps using those concepts. Even if you get the answer wrong an instructor will likely give partial credit for correctly applying those concepts. Just sayin'

[colourful]

BLBass
The strikethrough retraction is also an important journalistic standard; without it, there is no real "taking responsibility" for one's errors. (Hannity, O'Reilly, Dobbs, et al. would be well advised to pay attention to what real journalism looks like!)
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­_
Response:
My understanding is that most of the personalities in front of the camera at F O X are not professional journalist by trade, which explains why some can believe they consistently deviate from journalist standards… I further understand that most of them are lawyers by trade, which may also explains why some believe their interpretation of the truth/facts is less black or white, but more of a gray…

[BLBass]

That's actually a great point. I know Megyn Kelly is a lawyer, and I think Gretchen Blondie McFriendsalot is too. But the marquee names (and most egregious offenders) at FOX are and continue to be the pundits, who have no legal training of which I'm aware.