.@nytimes still has this ridiculous article online, even though:
• It was based on forged documents
• Made laughable claims
• The expert quoted in the piece, supposedly vouching for the docs, had actually had reservations
• Irregularities were proven
See next tweets:
• It was based on forged documents
• Made laughable claims
• The expert quoted in the piece, supposedly vouching for the docs, had actually had reservations
• Irregularities were proven
See next tweets:
@nytimes Here is the thread I did about the forged documents within it, there are threads by experts like @Charles_Lister.
But aside from those detailed takes, I wanted to point out ethical issues that need to be addressed by @nytimes
But aside from those detailed takes, I wanted to point out ethical issues that need to be addressed by @nytimes
@nytimes @Charles_Lister Most dubious is that an expert was quoted as vouching for the document’s authenticity. But that turned out to be selectively reported. He was presented with a pile of documents. He deemed some of them forged & had reservations about all of them if they were from the same source>>
The report didn’t say any of that to the readers. No mention that the source had given her forged documents; still, some of the documents were salvaged for the story. The expert opinion was chopped up to support the story. The expert spoke out:
aymennjawad.org/2019/10/the-ne…
aymennjawad.org/2019/10/the-ne…
That's a serious mess-up from the New York Times. Its fact checkers should have ensured the experts said what he said in full.
The expert's full opinion was misrepresented, that's a clear violation; the other half of the docs, ORIGINATING FROM THE SAME SOURCE, were buried.
The expert's full opinion was misrepresented, that's a clear violation; the other half of the docs, ORIGINATING FROM THE SAME SOURCE, were buried.
Serious irregularities in the docs were core to the whole piece’s thesis include that the receipts predated the formation of the group in question.
When that irregularity was pointed out, the reporter outsourced the explanation to the original source. Yet @nytimes didn’t amend!
When that irregularity was pointed out, the reporter outsourced the explanation to the original source. Yet @nytimes didn’t amend!
If a reporter can’t examine documents himself or herself (language & expertise barrier), and have to ask outside experts to vet the documents, why not give the task to someone else? @nytimes has some of the best reporters and experts out there.
Again, as a general rule:
Not having all these skills is one thing, quite algorithm to misrepresent what those experts say to publish a piece based on questionable sources with questionable agendas.
Another problem with media.
Not having all these skills is one thing, quite algorithm to misrepresent what those experts say to publish a piece based on questionable sources with questionable agendas.
Another problem with media.
Anybody who knows anything about the subject matter will look at this document and laugh, as a first reaction. Oh, and whoever forged the documents made sure to scratch one of the parts that would help experts examine authenticity.
Ha! Instead of correcting the record, and thank you for it, the @nytimes reporter blocks you. This story needs to be amended, if NYT news section has any integrity. The flaws are too obvious.
More good forensic and linguistic points
Can experts examine if these “receipts” were filled later somehow, over empty receipts? If empty receipts previously collected & scanned, then later printed or filled, for example.
Can experts examine if these “receipts” were filled later somehow, over empty receipts? If empty receipts previously collected & scanned, then later printed or filled, for example.
Super embarrassing. The only person who doesn’t think the documents are forged happens to be the source of the said forged docs.
This piece is another case of misrepresenting facts. Experts agree, aren’t divided nytimes.com/2019/11/14/wor…
Also bigger issues beyond this (scroll up)
This piece is another case of misrepresenting facts. Experts agree, aren’t divided nytimes.com/2019/11/14/wor…
Also bigger issues beyond this (scroll up)
.@nytimes isn’t off the hook with a silly coverup like this, which is just a separate way to deflect blame, to pretend there is an expert divide over forged documents, and to avoid formally admitting they ran a laughable story based on forgery & questionable sources.
A lot of people are noticing this and other things, online and offline, so it’s wise to deal with it head on:
