Kinja reply list

Read More
Graby SauceJ.K. Trotter
12/13/13 5:06pm
If the result of telling the truth about the reasons for Levinson's trip would be for him to be killed, why wouldn't they lie about it? It seems they had two non-death-resulting choices: not to report the story at all or lying about the reasons for Levinson's visit.

In other words, JK, why do you want Levinson to have been killed?
Reply
- Read More
  J.K. TrotterGraby Sauce
  12/13/13 5:11pm
  They had a third choice, which with the exception of that one story the AP chose to take: Simply report that he had disappeared in Iran.
  Reply
- Read More
  John CookGraby Sauce
  12/13/13 5:15pm
  Yes! There is actually a lot of good the New York Times and ABC News could do by deliberately reporting falsehoods, if they were more comfortable with it. They could save a lot of lives by knowingly repeating lies. Especially when it comes to stories about war and espionage.
  Reply
Read More
keeplosingburnersJ.K. Trotter
12/13/13 5:05pm
"At the request of the government and Levinson’s family"

If the NYT and ABC News had reason to believe that covering this up for a period of time could be the difference between life and death, it is difficult for me to get too worked up about it. If the intention was always to release the truth once Levinson had been rescued - or killed - then what exactly was the harm in delaying the release of the truth?

Seriously, what could they have done differently? Their options were 1) Ignore the story completely, 2) Ignore both the family and government's pleas for discretion and report the truth, or 3) Report the story and temporarily lie about the reason for Levinson's travel, because clearly they had to give some sort of explanation as to how he got to Iran.

To me, 3 is the only reasonable choice they had here.
Reply
- Read More
  J.K. Trotterkeeplosingburners
  12/13/13 5:16pm
  In this case caveating the “business trip” claim seems reasonable. Like in this Times piece, which I mentioned in the post:
  
  Mr. Levinson’s family and American officials have said that Mr. Levinson went to Iran to investigate cigarette smuggling for a private client.
  
  Or in this Times report, also linked above:
  
  Mr. Levinson traveled to Iran in 2007 on what his family said was a business trip and has been missing since then.
  
  That’s attributing the claim to a source. That’s not lying.
  Reply
- Read More
  twizzlerkeeplosingburners
  12/13/13 5:20pm
  Think about what you're saying. Somebody is USUALLY hurt by a news story, especially a good one. You don't use that as justification to not publish. Good god! It's not the media's job to protect who might be hurt by a story they write.
  
  Otherwise, let's just cancel journalism. If the truth doesn't matter, if you can find all these great reasons why journalists should print or broadcast lies, then why do we need them? Why even pretend to report "facts" and call them "truth"?
  Reply
Read More
ThewalkingdudeJ.K. Trotter
12/13/13 5:15pm

It’s one thing for a news outlet to keep secrets at the request of the government, or in order to keep someone safe. It’s another thing to affirmatively and knowingly spread lies.

Question: Ethically, what is the standard for Journalists in this case? Do they leave a blank in the story when it comes to explaining why he was there? Does anyone have insight on this?
Reply
- Read More
  J.K. TrotterThewalkingdude
  12/13/13 5:18pm
  You caveat it. “His family says he was there on a business trip.” Not, “He was there on a business trip.”
  Reply
- Read More
  ThewalkingdudeJ.K. Trotter
  12/13/13 5:22pm
  What's the difference? You're still lying about why he was there? This seems more like a test question for Journalistic Ethics 101 than a public scandal.
  
  I am genuinely confused by this- I can't quite wrap my head around why protecting this man by keeping is CIA status secret is causing outrage.
  Reply
Read More
jimbobtomJ.K. Trotter
12/13/13 5:34pm
In understand what you're getting at: the NYTimes lied. But this is a complex story, with many facets, and I trust the NYTimes ethics over Gawker's any day. So go ahead and be upset, but if we knew all Gawker's dirty journalism secrets, how many stories could we squeeze out? Something tells me more than one.
Reply
- Read More
  J.K. Trotterjimbobtom
  12/13/13 5:37pm
  Uh, our “dirty journalism secrets” are very, very well known.
  Reply
- Read More
  jimbobtomJ.K. Trotter
  12/13/13 6:05pm
  Oooh, I'm intrigued now. Do tell.
  Reply
Read More
liberalinternationalism2J.K. Trotter
12/13/13 5:04pm

At the request of the government and Levinson’s family, however, both outlets repeatedly stated, without any caveats, that Levinson was on a “business trip” when he was captured.

I have zero problem with this.

"It’s one thing for a news outlet to keep secrets at the request of the government, or in order to keep someone safe. It’s another thing to affirmatively and knowingly spread lies."

Sometimes. Other times the conspicuous absence of a detail in a story, like the purpose of his trip, would be tantamount to refuting the official government position.
Reply
- Read More
  J.K. Trotterliberalinternationalism2
  12/13/13 5:20pm
  No. You can say “The government says he was on a business trip” without lying, because it’s true; the government said that, over and over again. That’s an honest caveat.
  Reply
- Read More
  liberalinternationalism2J.K. Trotter
  12/13/13 5:24pm
  
  You can say “The government says he was on a business trip” without lying, because it’s true
  
  Only if that's consistent with the wording of other stories. If they normally would write, "the government says," when describing a missing person's career, then that's fine, but if not, then that is a pretty obvious tell. Iranian agents aren't stupid. They can decode awkwardly worded skepticism.
  Reply
Read More
ugh12345J.K. Trotter
12/13/13 5:11pm
Situations like this fall in a grey area. If lying will keep someone alive then I feel it's acceptable, especially because most likely they intended to come clean as soon as they could. I don't understand why people think they need to know every detail and truth about every situation as it happens, life just doesn't work that way in the greater scheme of things.
Reply
- Read More
  J.K. Trotterugh12345
  12/13/13 5:22pm
  An off-the-books CIA officer being kidnapped by Iran is not a small detail; it is a major, international story.
  Reply
- Read More
  spraycandiarrheaugh12345
  12/14/13 1:47pm
  This thinking is skewed. Your comment presupposes that the lie was necessary to keep him alive. At minimum, I can agree with not reporting the truth. But it does not necessarily follow that the straight up lying was necessary.
  Reply
Read More
Ace HoffmanJ.K. Trotter
12/15/13 10:24am
I think the unanswered question is: How did the newspapers learn that he was CIA? I'm rather tired of "unnamed sources" spouting lies that the media pick up on, and I'm nearly as tired of those same sources telling the truth but only the part they want you to know, in other words, a half-truth. Surely no one would want the media sources to publish the truth and THUS get Levinson killed, but how do we know he would have been killed with all that media attention? The negotiations to get him back would certainly have changed — but probably for the better. America would have the upper hand because America would be acting in good faith. Instead, what happens when a "mere" citizen is abducted and accused of being CIA? Who will believe American officials — or media — who say he's not CIA?
Reply
- Read More
  J.K. TrotterAce Hoffman
  12/15/13 12:49pm
  The family told some outlets; the AP’s report seems to indicate that their reporters were able to independently confirm Levinson’s CIA work.
  Reply
Read More
DigidaveJ.K. Trotter
12/15/13 1:32pm
The standard barer of journalistic ethics is still considered to be SPJ's Code of Ethics.

The first "order" is to "seek the truth and report it." The second, however, is to "minimize harm." It goes on "Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect."

I guess my point is - this is not so cut and dry. A man's life is in the balance. The immediate result of putting out the information that he is a CIA agent is that he has a gruesome death and his family probably have to watch videos of his head being ripped from his body. Certainly not minimizing harm.

The difference between lying or attributing a lie is nil. The organizations that attribute the misinformation instead of just stating it outright are still lying if they knew the truth. It is only from a theoretical and obnoxious high-ground you can excuse their lies but hold the NYT in contempt.

I think this is more about media literacy than moral judgement.

People should know that there are times when the truth of a matter is not shared. Any reporter that has gone "off the record" knows this. Readers don't always understand that - and they should. But if a source goes "off the record" and the journalist honors that agreement, it is not necessarily fair to then call them corrupt - especially if the information they were told while off the record could get a man killed if released.
Reply
- Read More
  J.K. TrotterDigidave
  12/15/13 3:17pm
  No, it’s not cut and dry; but it’s worth noting when organizations who make their coin on truth-telling engage in lying.
  Reply
Read More
badmuthawhatJ.K. Trotter
12/15/13 11:30am
Technically, he was there on a business trip, no? They just didn't say who that business was for.
Reply
- Read More
  J.K. Trotterbadmuthawhat
  12/15/13 12:00pm
  No. The business trip in this case refers to the story that he was in Iran working as a private investigator for his company, not as a single-contract CIA operative.
  Reply
Read More
banchoviJ.K. Trotter
12/13/13 5:11pm
He worked for the CIA, so it was a none-of-your-business trip.
Reply