The New York Times public editor tweeted Thursday that the newspaper was reviewing an article published earlier this week stating that an attacker in the San Bernardino shooting openly posted about her views on “violent jihad” over social media.
NYT editors deciding whether to correct San Bernadino/social media story challenged by Comey. Likely to be determined today (as it should).
— Margaret Sullivan (@Sulliview) December 17, 2015
The newspaper’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, also told The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple that the publication was “reporting it out” after FBI Director James Comey contradicted the report.
The article currently under review ran Sunday on the front page of The New York Times under the headline, “Visa Screening Missed an Attacker’s Zealotry on Social Media.” It stated that that Tashfeen Malik, who, along with her husband Syed Rizwan Farook, attacked a holiday party for county employees earlier this month, “talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.” The report cited unnamed government officials.
But on Wednesday, Comey said in a news conference that the couple showed signs of support for jihad through “direct, private messages,” according to The Washington Post.
“So far, in this investigation we have found no evidence of posting on social media by either of them at that period in time and thereafter reflecting their commitment to jihad or to martyrdom,” Comey said, as quoted by the Post. “I’ve seen some reporting on that, and that’s a garble.”
The Times’ report on Comey’s news conference reflected the language of those comments, stating that the couple “used private online messages to express their commitment to jihad and to martyrdom in the years before the attack, but they did not make those communications on social media.”
Other news outlets that reported on the shooters’ social media use used terms that made it clear Malik’s postings were sent through private channels. CNN reported Monday, citing anonymous law enforcement officials, that Malik’s posts were “obscured” under “strict privacy settings” that only allowed a small group of people to see them. She also used a pseudonym, according to the report.
The Los Angeles Times published a report that same day, citing two unnamed government officials, that said Malik had pledged her support for jihad in “private communications.”
I wont take credit for this (I’m not Trump) but here is the email i sent to Margaret Sullivan on Wednesday with the subject line “Another screw up from the same reporters who got the Hillary “criminal investigation” story so wrong?”
“Today the FBI director said the San Bernadino terrorists never pledged jihad on social media. The direct quote from James Comey: “I’ve seen some reporting on that, and that’s a garble.”
That “reporting” came from the Times on Sunday in a piece by the same two reporters who wrote that epically wrong story over the summer that Hillary Clinton was the target of a criminal probe into the mishandling of classified information. The NYT subtly walked back that story but still never really explained how they got it so wrong.
Will these reporters keep getting chances to screw up? Do they (or a source on their beat) have an agenda to damage the current president or the leading Democratic candidate for the 2016 election?
How is the NYT so complacent these days about major mistakes like this? Standards never used to be so casual. That email story was almost laughed off by your managing editor as, “Oh well, mistakes happen.”
What’s going on here, Ms Sullivan?”
Looks like another example of very, very sloppy reporting (and non-existent editing) by our paper of record.
What gives, New York Times?
More “tell the story the way we wish it was and walk it back later because nobody will catch the correction anyway” from the 4th Estate’s shuffling zombie corpse. It’s all unjournalism based on the fact that you can’t put the shit back in the dog.
Same reporters. Well, two of three on this story were the same ones whose totally reliable iron-solid sources told them Hillary was being criminally investigated over teh emailghazzi.
Dutifully regurgitating lies during the previous administration.
Just making sh*t up to embarrass this one.