Editorial Integrity Gone Awry
Posted on Monday, November 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM
Where were the editors when a phony news story went viral in the
worldwide media?
By William Dunkerley
Do you
remember the Alexander Litvinenko story from 2006? A reputed Russian spy
was poisoned in London by radioactive polonium, and a gruesome photo of
him languishing in a hospital bed popped up in media all over the world.
Top worldwide news stories reported, "Former KGB spy Alexander
Litvinenko was murdered on orders of Vladimir Putin."
Now,
five years later, the truth finally comes out. Alexander Litvinenko
wasn't a spy. He never worked for the KGB. And the claim that Vladimir
Putin ordered the murder is not rooted in fact; it was merely an
allegation by one of Putin's arch-enemies. What's more, the London
coroner has never concluded that Litvinenko was even murdered.
What
Went Wrong
How could an editorial failure of this magnitude
have happened? And what can we as editors learn from this outstanding
embarrassment to our profession?
Actually, I've had a personal
connection with the Litvinenko story. In 2007, I was commissioned by the
organizers of the World Congress of the International Federation of
Journalists to study the media coverage of the Litvinenko poisoning. The
Congress was held in Moscow, where I presented my report.
I told
the Congress participants that the story was specious, and I presented
an analysis of headlines and articles to back up my conclusion.
A
few months ago, with the approaching fifth anniversary of the Litvinenko
case, I thought of doing an article to reflect upon those findings. I
pitched the story to Foreign Policy magazine. They rejected it.
Then I tried the Columbia Journalism Review. They gave it the
thumbs-down, too. So I decided to do a book on the topic instead.
That's
when I uncovered more startling evidence of the story's inauthenticity.
When I searched for details of the coroner's report on the murder, I
could find none. It seemed as though no ruling had been made. I
contacted the coroner's office in London seeking confirmation. I wrote:
"Based
on my present understanding, I will report:
"'As of now, the
coroner has not determined that Litvinenko's death was a homicide.
Indeed, no certification has been issued as to the cause and manner of
death.
"If that contains any inaccuracies, please correct me.
Thanks."
The coroner's office responded:
"William,
"That
is correct. Thanks for seeking clarification."
So all the
time while newspapers, magazines, and broadcast media were reporting on
a murder, there never had been an actual ruling that a murder took
place. Perhaps "alleged murder" would have been a better term. But then
there were also less-publicized but competing explanations. One claimed
the poisoning was accidental, the other that it was a suicide. All
things considered, reporting it as a "suspicious death" would have been
more appropriate.
Then, I heard from a former instructor at the
FSB (similar to the American FBI) academy whose students had worked with
Litvinenko. He told me that Litvinenko was never a spy and never worked
for the KGB. I also found a video of a 2007 Charlie Rose Show
episode during which Litvinenko's widow maintained the same story.
This
means that all the key elements of the story don't check out. Media
outlets called the Litvinenko case a James Bond mystery. I say it's more
like Alice in Wonderland -- a fantasy adventure that's full of
illogical nonsense.
The book I wrote, The Phony Litvinenko
Murder (www.omnicompress.com/plm),
offers an insightful analysis into this example of editorial integrity
gone awry. In it, I suggest that the most newsworthy aspect of the
Litvinenko case is how a baseless story was pumped up in top headlines
around the world. I describe how the story was "managed" by a PR firm
bent on propagating a certain perspective. The firm in question
apparently developed the now well-publicized storyline, handed out
photos, and arranged interviews.
Why Editors and Journalists
Failed
But, still, how could this have fooled experienced
editors and journalists? Did they fail to do a responsible job out of
ill intent? I've seen nothing to suggest that. Why, then, did they
neglect their responsibility?
I'll posit a few contributing
factors:
1. It was easier for them to go with a managed story
that was handed to them, or to just follow the crowd in using the angle
that others had taken. And it took less effort to write to their
audiences' stereotypes than to explain realities that contradicted the
accepted story.
2. A simple spy story had more instant audience
appeal than a complex story of intermingled relationships, hidden
agendas, and unfamiliar subtleties.
3. The editors and
journalists involved lacked the expertise and resources necessary to do
a thorough job. Was this a London story, or was it a Russian story that
just happened to play out in London? Methinks the latter. But for the
most part, the news crews in charge of the story were UK-based. And they
were clueless about the critically important Russian subtleties of the
case. A Moscow-based journalist of a UK paper told me of his fruitless
efforts to correct the faulty journalism of his colleagues in London. He
said that they were in control of the story and wouldn't listen to his
input.
While the editors and journalists may have had no ill
intent, the result of their failure was hardly benign. For instance, the
present chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the US Congress,
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, was duped by the story. At her instigation, the
Committee in 2008 passed a condemnatory resolution based on the
Litvinenko "facts" that turned out not to be factual at all. And based
on that same phony information, Ros-Lehtinen urged President Obama in
2010 to seriously consider backing out of the US-Russia nuclear
cooperation agreement and to curtail certain trade between the two
countries.
Perhaps you don't edit stories about spies or murder.
But whatever field your publication covers, you have an important role
as an editor. As we've seen with the Litvinenko case, editorial
integrity means going beyond just telling the truth as it may appear.
You have a responsibility to do your due diligence (i.e., thorough,
objective research) before toeing the journalistic party line. Failure
to do so can yield disastrous results!
William Dunkerley is
editor of Editors Only.
Add
your comment.
Posted in (RSS)