USA Today Finds Faked Stories

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 03/20/2004 | Paul Richter

[Copernicus]

www.sfgate.com

USA Today finds faked stories

Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times

Saturday, March 20, 2004

©2004 San Francisco Chronicle

URL: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/20/MNGR25OFG61.DTL

Washington -- USA Today, one of the nation's largest-circulation newspapers, said Friday it has found that a former star foreign correspondent had made up parts of at least eight stories, committing "journalistic sins" that were "sweeping and substantial."

In a front-page article, the Gannett Co. newspaper said that a team of reporters and an editor found evidence of repeated fabrications during an examination of 720 articles written by Jack Kelley between 1993 and 2003.

It said the evidence "strongly contradicted" Kelley's stories that he had spent a night with Egyptian terrorists; met a vigilante Jewish settler; taken part in a dangerous hunt for Osama bin Laden; visited a terrorist gathering point on the Afghan-Pakistani border; and watched a Pakistani student "unfold a picture of the Sears Tower and say, 'This one is mine.' "

The newspaper said Kelley's "most egregious misdeed" took place in 2000, when he used a photo he took of a Cuban hotel worker as the basis for a phony story about a woman who died fleeing the country by boat. In fact, the woman did not flee, and was found by a reporter earlier this month, the paper said.

The paper said Kelley tried to undermine the investigation by providing scripts to potential alibi witnesses suggesting how they might corroborate his version of events.

[Copernicus]

More details on the fictional reportage of one Jack Kelley.

Other articles listed at *CCRM

[Copernicus]

And now this one is listed at *CCRM also

[Eric in the Ozarks]

USA Today is not a newspaper.

[CIB-173RDABN]

I solved the problem of what to believe in any newspaper report years ago. I first assume the reporter has an agenda, and second, I assume the reporter would use his story to support his agenda, third, I quit reading newspapers.

The newsmedia is not our friend. The purpose of a newspaper is to sell adverstising. It is suppose to be a for profit organization. It is funny how management is willing to write off a large number of potenial readers, in exchange for seeing that only their view of the world is presented.

They do have a point of view, and I really don't care if they use their pages to promote their point of view, what drives me crazy is when they claim to be unbias. We know they are not unbias, they know they are not unbias, and they know that we know they are not unbias, but they refuse to admit it. I refuse to pay for the privilage of being lied to.

[stevem]

USA Today is not a newspaper.

I must agree. It's torture that a traveler must endure because "multi-star" hotels insist on littering corridors with them. It would be interesting to discover how much of the vaunted circulation is along those lines.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I've made it a practice to tell the hotels where I stay to NOT give me a free USA Today. The damn things still are a hidden part of my bill at checkout, tho.

[skinkinthegrass]

It would be interesting to discover how much of the vaunted circulation is along those lines.

...excellent point!...that said, Our local Fishwrapper, Lexington Herald Leader, has launched a sub. drive...I told them "Where To Go/Put, That G*D Awful Rag." on the phone/@ Kroger.

[commish]

Actually when I am on business I like getting USA TODAY. The Sports section is absolutely top notch, and the weather map comes in handy.

Plus if the bathroom has no TP, I can use The front Page to wipe with -- or I can read the "news" and Op-Ed page for a laugh.

[WoofDog123]

"I solved the problem of what to believe in any newspaper report years ago. I first assume the reporter has an agenda, and second, I assume the reporter would use his story to support his agenda, third, I quit reading newspapers."

I recall working at UPS years ago, and having myself put in the district magazine with quotes I never ever said, utter propaganda about workplace safety, etc. At that point I began to realize this method of story-writing was the rule, not the exception. From that time I hvae firsthand seen journalists fabricate and exaggerate to make their story work right, though never anything on this level. USA today and the NYT are just uncovering the tip of the iceberg.

[gaijin]

It's rich, the San Francisco Chronicle reporting on the abuses of others. I really don't see them as being any better.

I believe TV is much worse, and I solved the problem by getting rid our TV's.

We're on our 8th year of no TV at all, and I at least am MUCH happier.

[CIB-173RDABN]

I think their "dirty little secret" is becoming common knowledge. Their power is decreasing, and the good news is, they don't seem to know why.

[middie]

It appears that "know-nothingism" is alive and well amongst FR devotees. The morning delivery of USA Today by the hotel chain I frequent on business travel is a useful resource. The seemingly universal dismissal of all news sources, print as well as electronic, is a mystery. To keep up with what's happening in the world, these folks probably divine all the information they need to form opinions from their intuition, which, I am confident, is so keen as to not need reporters, wire services or syndicated columnists. On the other hand, some of their commentary seems to come directly from such paragons of newsworthiness as Messers Limbaugh, Hannity, Mike Reagan & Laura (whatever her name--the lawyer) and other local clones --and a consumate moron, arrogant creep named Savage who is absolutely certain of his own omniscience (this guy would have fit right in as a Minister of Hate in the German government of the late 1930s).

Also, the rejection of all media except those agreeing with their own ideological perspective would indicate an inability to separate a news reporter's slant from the underlying facts giving rise to that perspective.

The dialog about the "press bias" or the pejorative remarks referring to "the main stream media" makes for interesting banter but it bespeaks more about the speaker than the accuracy of his comments. And, of course, the emphasis on the press as being "liberal" adds to the fun of feigning intelligent analysis such as using USA Today for a shoe shine cloth or in the toilet.

In the end, I suppose the subject gives those with no real contribution to make or participatory role to play a means of expressing their ideology and having a one-sided argument with those who either don't whole heartedly agree with them, don't advocate their favored position or, actually disagrees with them.

[Dave W]

One-third of USA Today's sales are at hotels. They are all paid for by the hotels. In fact, USA Today is the number one amenity at hotels that people are looking for and it is the number one complaint at such hotels if for some reason the papers are not there.

Furthermore, Fairmont, Ritz and Four Seasons all purchase the paper for their monied guests and in those palaces of luxury, the paper is expected to hung on the door.

The hotel industry has taken multiple surveys over the years and USA Today beats out The NYT and The WSJ by very large margins as the paper of preference, even in the luxury hotels.

Further, you may be interested to know that the average subscribers and frequent readers (3 times a week) household income is over $100,000.

[Copernicus]

It appears that "know-nothingism" is alive and well amongst FR devotees. The morning delivery of USA Today by the hotel chain I frequent on business travel is a useful resource.

You are certainly welcome to use whatever resource you think valuable. But it is a mystery why you would defend the indefensible.

Contemporary "news" sources have become an indecipherable embarrassment of overt calumny.

This reporter did not merely embellish or mistranscribe or slightly alter an existing event. He INVENTED it. There were no "decapitated heads" rolling in the street. His lie borders on criminal incitement to riot.

The failure of an investigation to uncover this lie in the first attempt stains everyone with whom he associated.

What did they not know and when did they not know it?

It suggests a "culture of acceptance" for criminal fraud.

Why reputable hotel chains and advertisers would condone this behaviour even "occasionally" is a mystery to me, just as your defense of the "valuable" resource USA Today represents is incomprehensible.

Best regards,

[Mike Bates]

The way things are going, it might be a lot easier for all of the affected newspapers to start searching for stories that aren't fake.

Michael M. Bates: My Side of the Swamp

[HP8753]

I must agree. It's torture that a traveler must endure because "multi-star" hotels insist on littering corridors with them. It would be interesting to discover how much of the vaunted circulation is along those lines.

Kinda like TIME & NEWSWEEK,If it wasn't for Doctors and Dentists subscribing for something to litter their offices with those two pieces of Liberal Crap would have probably withered away.

[DeltaZulu]

First, the poster is posting on a web-site so he hasn't dismissed all electronic sources of news. Second, you impugn openly conservative radio talk show hosts. While I can tolerate your cliche braying, these people state clearly their bias. The first lie the modern print media tells us is that they are not biased. Secondly, Mr. Limbaugh, who is the leading indicator in talk radio is audited for accuracy each year by an independent auditing firm. How many newspapers or television news organizations would even submit to an accuracy audit let alone print/broadcast the results of such an audit. Limbaugh's accuracy rating this last year was 93%. No doubt the others you name are not far behind. Whether you agree with their politics or not, they give you the facts. This story is a clear illustration that the "mainstream media" doesn't give you the facts if they don't suit their agenda. Ironically you allude to Goebels who clearly demonstrated that if you tell a big enough lie long and loud enough, eventually people will believe it. This is precicely what this article exposes, not in the conservative talk show circut but in your "useful resource." Our criticisms of the press are based on FACTS such as are presented in this story. You, however ignore this and malign people who point to these stories and suggest that we are "feigning intelligent analysis." This is a snobs way of dodging the truth while calling others stupid. Couch it in magniloquence all you want, but it is still ad-hominem knee-jerk based on your feeling rather than the FACT presented by the article. Furthermore, our criticisms are the REAL contribution. By making these biases known, others are more able to discern the bias and subsequently extract the truth. Ironically, your argument that a complaint of bias indicates an inability to separate the slant from the underlying facts. This statement is on its face an oxymoron. The rationale for posting the complaints is based on the identification of a bias that is found to be inconsistent with the facts. To add to the irony, you yourself fail to identify the fact that repoters are lieing to you because of their bias and you see neither the fact nor the bias.

[ChadGore]

Loosing share ? Try the truth.

[leadpenny]

DZ and all of the above:

Great discussion and comments. Of course there is bias in all of the outlets. It's why I subscribe to The Washington Times.

[Copernicus]

Loosing share ? Try the truth.

I've read your comment.

Twice.

I suggest you do the same.

Coherence. It is not just for breakfast anymore.

Best regards,