A phony reporter

[Drip]

This is unbelievable.
http://lagniappemobile.com/setting-our-own-record-straight/

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

Wow. They went above and beyond when they finished with the reporters' alleged transgressions when she was employed by them and went on to call into question her academic dishonesty and her dishonest actions with previous employers. That was a nuclear attack.

I'd question why they didn't find out about the academic stuff and problems at her former employers before they hired her. Should have been part of the reference and background check process, I'm thinking. If they did their jobs then, she wouldn't have been hired and wouldn't have been able to dirty their name.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I remember one of my former bosses telling us about a call from another paper about a co-worker. He said, "On the record, I can confirm that he has worked here since August of 1990 and has covered the following beats for us... Off the record, I hope you hire him so I'll never have to see him or talk to him ever again."

The person who called him was a friend of his, so that was a little different.

 

[murphyc]

Wow. They went above and beyond when they finished with the reporters' alleged transgressions when she was employed by them and went on to call into question her academic dishonesty and her dishonest actions with previous employers. That was a nuclear attack.

I'd question why they didn't find out about the academic stuff and problems at her former employers before they hired her. Should have been part of the reference and background check process, I'm thinking. If they did their jobs then, she wouldn't have been hired and wouldn't have been able to dirty their name.

I agree, especially in regards to not verifying the academic stuff. In terms of former employers, due to potential liability the other papers may have only felt comfortable verifying when she was employed there. I once had a co-worker who, among other things, sent in fake letters the editor praising her work. When she left for a different weekly, she threatened our boss she would sue if he gave anything but a glowing recommendation. I felt sorry for her new boss, who was a great guy in desperate need of someone to help him out. Instead he got just the opposite.
To me, the most surprising thing is al.com not verifying some of the same information.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

My mom is an office manager and got some advice early on that has served her well. If an employer calls to check a reference about a problem employee, she says "I will verify that she worked for us from date A to date B, but that's all I have to say about her time here." Legally safe, and most employers seem to get the message.

Honestly, I have no idea how often employers actually verify education on a resume. Mine is correct so it hasn't been an issue, but I have no idea if my employers have actually checked it, and it certainly wouldn't surprise me if some hadn't.

 

[SnarkShark]

Isn't this a bit much? The article in question wasn't even published.

What's the intention here, other than completely crushing this reporter's future career (which may be worth crushing)?

Seems more like Lagniappe wanted to pat itself on the back for catching it's own reporter (ALARM BELLS WENT OFF!), along with vindictively laying waste to Nichols' career.

Saying that they are "setting the record straight" is bull****. What record needed to be corrected, exactly?

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

I've always been told if you get a reference call about a poor former employee, you verify dates of employment and say they are not eligible to be rehired, and that's it.

Don't know if it's true, but have heard you can get in quite a legal hassle if you trash them in a reference call and it hurts their ability to find future employment. If that's the case, I can't imagine what kind of problems this story could cause all this reporter's past employers who were quoted. This is the kind of scorched-earth story that pretty much makes her unemployable.

 

[MTM]

An editor once told me that he never gave a bad reference to a current employee because he either liked them and wanted them to advance in their career or he disliked them and wanted them to leave.

But only verifying dates of employment is a big red flag, as someone said earlier.

I had the HR department ask me what year I graduated from college after I interviewed with the news executives. I assumed that was so they could check if I really got a degree.

 

[SoloFlyer]

Isn't this a bit much? The article in question wasn't even published.

What's the intention here, other than completely crushing this reporter's future career (which may be worth crushing)?

Seems more like Lagniappe wanted to pat itself on the back for catching it's own reporter (ALARM BELLS WENT OFF!), along with vindictively laying waste to Nichols' career.

Saying that they are "setting the record straight" is bull****. What record needed to be corrected, exactly?

Might want to read it again, Snark. Lagniappe said the manufactured but non-published story prompted an investigation into her previous work, which led to the discovery of other falsified sources and uncorroborated information that actually was published.

I'd say that's something that needs to be admitted and aired publicly.

 

[SnarkShark]

Isn't this a bit much? The article in question wasn't even published.

What's the intention here, other than completely crushing this reporter's future career (which may be worth crushing)?

Seems more like Lagniappe wanted to pat itself on the back for catching it's own reporter (ALARM BELLS WENT OFF!), along with vindictively laying waste to Nichols' career.

Saying that they are "setting the record straight" is bull****. What record needed to be corrected, exactly?

Might want to read it again, Snark. Lagniappe said the manufactured but non-published story prompted an investigation into her previous work, which led to the discovery of other falsified sources and uncorroborated information that actually was published.

I'd say that's something that needs to be admitted and aired publicly.

I think it is speculation to say the two sources in question were falsified. Both sources were investigated and they couldn't find proof they were falsified. They essentially said they looked suspicious, but couldn't prove they were made-up.

 

[DeskMonkey1]

I've dealt with one of the co-founders of that paper and I'm not at all surprised he would do this. I *am* surprised he do it on a public forum, though

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Wow. They went above and beyond when they finished with the reporters' alleged transgressions when she was employed by them and went on to call into question her academic dishonesty and her dishonest actions with previous employers. That was a nuclear attack.

I'd question why they didn't find out about the academic stuff and problems at her former employers before they hired her. Should have been part of the reference and background check process, I'm thinking. If they did their jobs then, she wouldn't have been hired and wouldn't have been able to dirty their name.

Sounds like she got what she deserved.

She'll probably be working in PR in a month.

 

[SoloFlyer]

Isn't this a bit much? The article in question wasn't even published.

What's the intention here, other than completely crushing this reporter's future career (which may be worth crushing)?

Seems more like Lagniappe wanted to pat itself on the back for catching it's own reporter (ALARM BELLS WENT OFF!), along with vindictively laying waste to Nichols' career.

Saying that they are "setting the record straight" is bull****. What record needed to be corrected, exactly?

Might want to read it again, Snark. Lagniappe said the manufactured but non-published story prompted an investigation into her previous work, which led to the discovery of other falsified sources and uncorroborated information that actually was published.

I'd say that's something that needs to be admitted and aired publicly.

I think it is speculation to say the two sources in question were falsified. Both sources were investigated and they couldn't find proof they were falsified. They essentially said they looked suspicious, but couldn't prove they were made-up.

Couldn't find proof that they were falsified? More like they couldn't find proof they actually exist. They go to the house of this supposed grandmother and no one lives there by that name. They check on this supposed homeless person and no one knows anyone by that name and the reporter won't give a description.

There's no paper trail, but that's pretty damning evidence. Using people as sources who don't appear to exist is usually not a wise way to stay employed in this business.

 

[Drip]

Just giving the date of when someone was employed IS NOT a red flag. There are legal issues that come into play. As far as this particular person is concerned, she was able to get by because NO ONE CHECKED. And what makes it look bad is that she continued to get by with people not checking up on her. She took advantage of incompetence.

 

[Ace]

Isn't this a bit much? The article in question wasn't even published.

What's the intention here, other than completely crushing this reporter's future career (which may be worth crushing)?

Seems more like Lagniappe wanted to pat itself on the back for catching it's own reporter (ALARM BELLS WENT OFF!), along with vindictively laying waste to Nichols' career.

Saying that they are "setting the record straight" is bull****. What record needed to be corrected, exactly?

Might want to read it again, Snark. Lagniappe said the manufactured but non-published story prompted an investigation into her previous work, which led to the discovery of other falsified sources and uncorroborated information that actually was published.

I'd say that's something that needs to be admitted and aired publicly.

I think it is speculation to say the two sources in question were falsified. Both sources were investigated and they couldn't find proof they were falsified. They essentially said they looked suspicious, but couldn't prove they were made-up.

Couldn't find proof that they were falsified? More like they couldn't find proof they actually exist. They go to the house of this supposed grandmother and no one lives there by that name. They check on this supposed homeless person and no one knows anyone by that name and the reporter won't give a description.

There's no paper trail, but that's pretty damning evidence. Using people as sources who don't appear to exist is usually not a wise way to stay employed in this business.

I thought the story did go a bit far in seeming to enjoy patting itself on the back while trashing her. Not that she didn't deserve trashing.

 

[Drip]

Isn't this a bit much? The article in question wasn't even published.

What's the intention here, other than completely crushing this reporter's future career (which may be worth crushing)?

Seems more like Lagniappe wanted to pat itself on the back for catching it's own reporter (ALARM BELLS WENT OFF!), along with vindictively laying waste to Nichols' career.

Saying that they are "setting the record straight" is bull****. What record needed to be corrected, exactly?

Might want to read it again, Snark. Lagniappe said the manufactured but non-published story prompted an investigation into her previous work, which led to the discovery of other falsified sources and uncorroborated information that actually was published.

I'd say that's something that needs to be admitted and aired publicly.

I think it is speculation to say the two sources in question were falsified. Both sources were investigated and they couldn't find proof they were falsified. They essentially said they looked suspicious, but couldn't prove they were made-up.

Couldn't find proof that they were falsified? More like they couldn't find proof they actually exist. They go to the house of this supposed grandmother and no one lives there by that name. They check on this supposed homeless person and no one knows anyone by that name and the reporter won't give a description.

There's no paper trail, but that's pretty damning evidence. Using people as sources who don't appear to exist is usually not a wise way to stay employed in this business.

I thought the story did go a bit far in seeming to enjoy patting itself on the back while trashing her. Not that she didn't deserve trashing.

The paper didn't do anything more than the Washington Post did with Janet Cooke and the New York Times did with Jason Blair.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Just giving the date of when someone was employed IS NOT a red flag. There are legal issues that come into play. As far as this particular person is concerned, she was able to get by because NO ONE CHECKED. And what makes it look bad is that she continued to get by with people not checking up on her. She took advantage of incompetence.

There are potential legal issues if it's a negative reference. Just giving the dates is a huge red flag.

 

[DeskMonkey1]

I remember years ago, working retail, I was talking to my boss when the phone rang. Seconds later, he said "I'm not allowed to give a bad recommendation." He repeated it and said "Take that for what you will."

I wonder if that poor chap got that job.

Years later, after my second paper laid me off, I learned that management WAS NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS for any worker laid off. Most, if not all, thumbed their nose to that, but I thought it was beyond sick to basically try to exile the workers you canned to unemployment.

 

[Steak Snabler]

Isn't this a bit much? The article in question wasn't even published.

What's the intention here, other than completely crushing this reporter's future career (which may be worth crushing)?

Seems more like Lagniappe wanted to pat itself on the back for catching it's own reporter (ALARM BELLS WENT OFF!), along with vindictively laying waste to Nichols' career.

Saying that they are "setting the record straight" is bull****. What record needed to be corrected, exactly?

Might want to read it again, Snark. Lagniappe said the manufactured but non-published story prompted an investigation into her previous work, which led to the discovery of other falsified sources and uncorroborated information that actually was published.

I'd say that's something that needs to be admitted and aired publicly.

I think it is speculation to say the two sources in question were falsified. Both sources were investigated and they couldn't find proof they were falsified. They essentially said they looked suspicious, but couldn't prove they were made-up.

Couldn't find proof that they were falsified? More like they couldn't find proof they actually exist. They go to the house of this supposed grandmother and no one lives there by that name. They check on this supposed homeless person and no one knows anyone by that name and the reporter won't give a description.

There's no paper trail, but that's pretty damning evidence. Using people as sources who don't appear to exist is usually not a wise way to stay employed in this business.

I thought the story did go a bit far in seeming to enjoy patting itself on the back while trashing her. Not that she didn't deserve trashing.

Like most alt weekly publishers, Lagniappe's Rob Holbert LOVES tweaking the local mainstream media outlet (in this case the Mobile Press-Register/AL.com). AL.com had hired Katie Nichols a few weeks earlier, after Lagniappe had fired her.

The Lagniappe story came out on Wednesday, March 5 (the day after Mardi Gras, incidentally). Katie Nichols was fired by AL.com on Thursday, March 6.

http://connect.al.com/user/katherinealise/posts.html

 

[murphyc]

Just giving the date of when someone was employed IS NOT a red flag. There are legal issues that come into play. As far as this particular person is concerned, she was able to get by because NO ONE CHECKED. And what makes it look bad is that she continued to get by with people not checking up on her. She took advantage of incompetence.

Just giving the date of when someone was employed CAN BE a red flag. If I have someone calling me about a former intern or reporter who wasn't good, I am going to say only the minimum, i.e. confirm the dates of employment. If that intern or reporter was great, I will give a strong recommendation. If I get pushed about the bad reporter and stick with only confirming dates of employment, my hunch is most hiring people will be able to put two and two together.