Praising Pro Publica for admitting this week that it made a massive, consequential mistake involving President Trump’s choice to lead the CIA is setting the bar especially low for the press.
The nonprofit news group simply did what it was supposed to do in the first place, which is tell the truth.
Gina Haspel neither oversaw the 2002 torture of an al Qaeda suspect in a secret prison in Thailand nor did she mock his suffering, contra Pro Publica’s original 2017 reporting. The group retracted both claims in an astonishing update published Thursday evening.
Whoopsie.
Correction: Trump’s pick to head the CIA did not oversee waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah https://t.co/3Pb9bbSvJz
— ProPublica (@ProPublica) March 15, 2018
This is as serious an error as any for a newsroom. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has even cited the original 2017 report as his reason for being a “no” on the confirmation of Haspel to CIA chief. Yet, for some in media, the key takeaway appears to be that Pro Publica did something noble – exceptional even! – by publishing a lengthy editor’s note.
“A big error, a detailed explanation and an apology by @ProPublica. Impressive transparency here,” said CNN’s Brian Stelter.
The Los Angeles Times’ Lisa Fung said elsewhere in reference to Stelter’s evening newsletter that, “the 975-word editor’s note today on its erroneous 2017 Gina Haspel story is a model for transparency.”
“It may be an ouch, but this editor’s note … on erroneous prior reporting on new CIA pick is the Right Way to Do a #Correction: Transparency + Full Explanation => maintain credibility with readers,” tweeted Poynter’s Indira Lakshmanan.
This is like praising a surgeon for acknowledging a year later that he removed the wrong kidney. Let’s not downplay the importance of issuing corrections, but let’s not also act like Pro Publica did something especially honorable Thursday when it did its job — eventually (remember, it took them more than a year to correct the record).
It’s worth noting that the truth behind Haspel’s non-involvement in the Thailand situation probably would’ve gotten out eventually. Pro Publica getting in front of its false reporting is likely as much about self-preservation as it is maintaining ethical standards in its newsroom.
Lastly, is it really being fully transparent when the editor’s note includes no hard details about who fed them the bogus Haspel information?
I know I’ve mentioned the 1994 drama “Quiz Show” in past articles, but the reference applies here as well.
Near the film’s conclusion, Ralph Fiennes’ character eloquently confesses before a congressional panel that he was complicit in a conspiracy to rig a gameshow. The congressional panel’s immediate response is high praise for man’s admission.
“I have listened to many witnesses in both civil and criminal matters, and yours is the most soul-searching confession I think I have heard in a long time,” one member says.
But then Rep. Steven Derounian, R-N.Y., dumps a bucket of cold water on everything.
“I’m happy that you’ve made the statement, but I cannot agree with most of my colleagues,” he said. “See, I don’t think an adult of your intelligence ought to be commended for simply, at long last, telling the truth.”
Likewise, Pro Publica doesn’t deserve any sort of special praise for doing the bare minimum expected of a professional newsroom, especially after an error of this magnitude.
–
Full disclosure: This author is a paid contributor with CNN/HLN.
