Thread by @yarbatman

1. This Reuters report lends credence to US claims that the strike on Soleimani was in “self-defense,” but the narrative doesn’t match other reporting (see @rcallimachi) that the intelligence on an imminent threat was “razor thin.” There’s a pattern...
reuters.com/article/us-ira…

2. In recent weeks I have noticed a tempo of Reuters “exclusives” drawn from unnamed and remarkably well-placed sources in the Iranian and Iraqi governments. The articles all lack a byline, but are mostly written by Michael Georgy—it’s not clear who is doing the actual reporting.

3. Reuters is a world leading news organization whose reporting I rely on greatly. They surely have excellent sources in Iraq and even Iran. But as a wire service with an outsize influence, it seems possible well-positioned sources are intending to shape narratives via Reuters.

4. The above piece is based on info from “two militia commanders and two security sources” who had knowledge of the subject matter of Soleimani’s meeting in Baghdad in *mid-October* at a “villa on the banks of the Tigris River.” Eight weeks later the meeting is public knowledge.

5. Similar sourcing can be seen in this unbylined October 16 piece based on information from “two Iraqi security officials.”
uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ira…

6. The same goes for this October 31 piece on Soleimani leading a “secret meeting” in Baghdad, as relayed by “five sources with knowledge of the meeting.” This is also unbylined, but the reporting here is attributed to the Baghdad newsroom.
uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ira…

7. Most significant is this widely circulated unbylined December 23 report that places the death toll from the Iran protests at 1500—significantly higher than other estimates—according to “three sources close to the supreme leader’s inner circle.”
uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ira…

8. It makes sense why the sources would be unnamed in such cases. But I see four issues. First, in highly factional political environments, a descriptor like “security official” gives the reader no context for claims. It’s like citing an “American lawmaker” on a partisan issue.

9. Second, because of the news wire style of reporting, there is little space or permission given for analysis by the unnamed journalist. Also outside analysts are rarely asked for comment. So highly consequential/ nuanced info—with unclear sourcing—is presented as straight fact.

10. That kind of editorial style works great when Reuters is reporting in the quarterly earnings of Walmart, but it creates lots of problems when it comes to these kinds of nuanced stories. The Reuters brand is rubber-stamping information that is inherently speculative.

11. Third, I find it peculiar that there’s no byline in these stories. I don’t think that would fly in a newspaper (even with security concerns). The reader—especially those with a professional interest—have no way to understand the report in the view of a wider body of reportage

12. For example, Reuters has no correspondents on the ground in Iran. To trust the story is to trust the journalist and their access. But we don’t even know who it is—even when the claim—the deaths of hundreds of protestors—is so significant, and quick-to-be-cited by US officials

13. Fourth, the outcomes described in the reporting may all be factual. But what’s notable is that each report is really focused on establishing that an Iranian actor directed a violent action in a highly premeditated way. There were meetings! This dramatic thing was said!

14. But more importantly, it’s a really difficult thing for other journalists to corroborate. Sure they can confirm the type/scale of the violent outcome, but do they have sources to call with knowledge of the same meetings, who led the discussion, and what was discussed?

15. Overall, I am not saying Reuters’ reporting is wrong—I am not presenting information here that contradicts the reporting. But the reporting sure is weird—in the way it’s being packaged, what it is focused on, who is (or isn’t) filing, and in the lack of context provided.