So much for credibility ... nice work USA Today

[Ira_Schoffel]

So, USA Today writes that big expose a few months back on how all the phone companies are giving our records to W's White House to spy on us.

Then it comes out that the main reporter, Leslie Cauley, has been a donor for a Democrat. Now, USA Today is backing down on the BASIC PREMISE of the entire story. But instead of standing up tall and admitting their shortcomings, this is the story and "note to the readers" that they run.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-30-nsa_x.htm

They could have just saved some space and said, "Hey, we were wrong. But there's still some bad stuff going on. And by the way, other papers reported stuff like this too. So leave us alone."

Everybody's going to make mistakes. Being misled by sources is a time-honored tradition in D.C. But you have to fall on your sword when it blows up ... it's the only way to not appear that you have an agenda.

 

[85bears]

Why the hell would any journalist donate to one political party or another? How stupid can you get?

 

[Ira_Schoffel]

Good question.

Another one is how you let that same reporter -- whose credibility has been questioned because of that contribution and who was apparently wrong on one of the year's biggest stories -- then turn around and work on the follow-up clarification story?

Boggles the mind.

 

[SockPuppet]

Jeeeeezzzzz. Thanks, Gannett, for helping out the industry.

 

[Chi City 81]

Do you expect anything less from the McPaper?

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Ask Dan Rather.

 

[tyler durden 71351]

Great...this will give ammo to the knuckle-draggers who are biased against the press. F'n Gannett.

 

[DyePack]

Not much from the Poynterbots so far.

 

[Chi City 81]

Not much from the Poynterbots so far.

Can we expect an update from Wenalway?

 

[DyePack]

But of course.

 

[Ace]

FWIW, USA Today is to Gannett as Vatican City is to Italy.

Kind of a nation unto itself.

 

[BillySixty]

I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but Roscoe Nance's Mock Draft for USA Today didn't include Rudy Gay.

 

[tyler durden 71351]

I read the USA Today thing again....and it looks unclear. I don't know if they should have said anything, because it looks like they're not sure...that the phone companies started singing a different tune after the article came out and the members of Congress familiar with the plan haven't changed their opinion. Personally, I think they should have named names at the phone companies...somebody lies to you or gives you misleading info on a big story like that, you need to burn the **** out of them.

 

[HejiraHenry]

I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but Roscoe Nance's Mock Draft for USA Today didn't include Rudy Gay.

Spell-check changed his name to Rudy Homosexual.

 

[DyePack]

I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but Roscoe Nance's Mock Draft for USA Today didn't include Rudy Gay.

Hate to admit this, but it happens easily. The Wenalway mock draft was all finished, but without one of the trades that happened before the draft. In the process of fixing it, another oddity was introduced. It didn't throw off the results (much).

 

[tmunson]

All the problems in this biz, and THAT's what has you concerned?

I read the note. Basically all it said is these companies are changing their stories. At least USA Today reported as much. How would you have handled it.

 

[Ira_Schoffel]

All the problems in this biz, and THAT's what has you concerned?

I read the note. Basically all it said is these companies are changing their stories. At least USA Today reported as much. How would you have handled it.

You're assuming that the companies changed their stories. I believe her original reporting was wrong.

If your theory was correct, USA Today wouldn't have done anything. They would have stood by their story. The very fact that they issued this revamped story and note proves they know they screwed the pooch.

This story -- if legit -- would have been one of the biggest stories of the year. That makes the original flaws and this convaluted clarification (or whatever it is) downright disturbing.

 

[somewriter]

I give USAT credit for saying something when I think they could have held their ground and stood on the original reporting. This story does open itself up to the claim that the original story was bogus, when in fact, we're talking about some details of the original story. Nobody is denying that these databases exist and can/are being used by the government. And that's the real story.

 

[DyePack]

I give USAT credit for saying something when I think they could have held their ground and stood on the original reporting. This story does open itself up to the claim that the original story was bogus, when in fact, we're talking about some details of the original story. Nobody is denying that these databases exist and can/are being used by the government. And that's the real story.

Generally, though, it's good to have solid evidence of things like that before printing articles.

 

[HejiraHenry]

I give USAT credit for saying something when I think they could have held their ground and stood on the original reporting. This story does open itself up to the claim that the original story was bogus, when in fact, we're talking about some details of the original story. Nobody is denying that these databases exist and can/are being used by the government. And that's the real story.

Anybody who ever read a Tom Clancy novel knew about this stuff 15 years ago, of course.