13 comments

1. Rumor,” huh? What you decried as “rumor” became “news” today. Your rant against Steve Herman and VOA was wrong, wrong, WRONG! BBG Watch is more concerned with ideology than journalism. You chose to accept the word of a White House that has engaged in egregious deception over the reporting of a seasoned journalist. You unrelentingly attack VOA over its journalistic principles, but yours are laughable. You owe Herman and VOA an apology for your vicious, disgraceful, and unjustified attack.

   1. Same reply as to the Anonymous.

      The VOA Charter and VOA Journalistic Code still apply to social media. Therefore, it’s a good thing to encourage VOA correspondents to adhere to both when they tweet. Just because a rumor turned out to be true many days later, does not mean that it should have been reported by a VOA correspondent in a tweet or in a news report without first obtaining and including any official response. That’s where VOA differs from commercial U.S. media. It is written into law, which has not been changed. Tweeting on national security issues by VOA correspondents without adhering to VOA Charter and VOA Journalistic Code with regard to accuracy, balance, comprehensiveness and presenting official U.S. policy effectively and accurately can be irresponsible and dangerous. VOA tweets made it look as if the National Security Advisor was departing immediately. That was not the case. We said that the Washington Post story could have been reported by VOA, but it had to be done differently. Tweets and re-tweets by VOA correspondents can have a significant impact abroad in crisis situations. That’s why VOA can not afford such mistakes as tweets by a VOA correspondent that the New York terror attack was reported to be a “road rage” incident. Did VOA apologize to its social media audience and the families of the victims? When it doubt, follow the VOA Charter and VOA Journalistic Code regardless of whether it’s social media reporting or a conventional VOA news report.

2. BBG Watch asks in the above article: “Can VOA correspondents be trusted not to report false or fake news, in tweets or in any other format?“. Steve Herman’s reporting here shows the answer is a resounding YES. I agree BBG Watch should apologize to Steve. Your other comment at the beginning of the article that VOA should not report an item like this without waiting for an official response from the White House shows a lack of understanding of how basic journalism works in the minute by minute reporting cycle we are now experiencing. This is an especially egregious comment given the fact that the official response eventually turned out to be incorrect.

   1. Same reply as to the Anonymous.

      The VOA Charter and VOA Journalistic Code still apply to social media. Therefore, it’s a good thing to encourage VOA correspondents to adhere to both when they tweet. Just because a rumor turned out to be true many days later, does not mean that it should have been reported by a VOA correspondent in a tweet or in a news report without first obtaining and including any official response. That’s where VOA differs from commercial U.S. media. It is written into law, which has not been changed. Tweeting on national security issues by VOA correspondents without adhering to VOA Charter and VOA Journalistic Code with regard to accuracy, balance, comprehensiveness and presenting official U.S. policy effectively and accurately can be irresponsible and dangerous. VOA tweets made it look as if the National Security Advisor was departing immediately. That was not the case. We said that the Washington Post story could have been reported by VOA, but it had to be done differently. Tweets and re-tweets by VOA correspondents can have a significant impact abroad in crisis situations. That’s why VOA can not afford such mistakes as tweets by a VOA correspondent that the New York terror attack was reported to be a “road rage” incident. Did VOA apologize to its social media audience and the families of the victims? When it doubt, follow the VOA Charter and VOA Journalistic Code regardless of whether it’s social media reporting or a conventional VOA news report.

3. The issue of individual VOA reporters injecting their own biases is well known by now, and became a major problem for VOA management, which was forced to order mandatory “journalism training” for employees.

   In his comment, Dyar asserts that Herman’s twitter activity on this story means that VOA correspondents “can be trusted not to report false or fake news.”

   The fact that the departure of this White House official eventually turned out to be true in no way justifies a VOA White House bureau chief happily jumping on the bandwagon and reposting material from other media so as to give the impression that VOA was somehow as plugged in as other major media on that story.

   VOA is nowhere near having the same sources and sourcing capability that major media outlets have. So, the VOA White House guy throws up a Washington Post link to make it seem as if VOA is on a competitive level with these other outlets.

   As a result, VOA was seen to be reporting that the departure of the White House official was imminent. THAT turned out to be FALSE — but it probably got Herman, who has a big stake in using the VOA platform to help maintain and increase his follower level, additional traction on his social media channels.

   What can safely be described as egregious is the attempt by two former VOA correspondents to ignore this aspect of the issue. What Dyar calls this “minute by minute reporting cycle” does not excuse VOA reporters from the need to exercise a bit more self-restraint in their social media posts.

4. This is relevant to this discussion. Covering the White House has changed under this under this volatile administration:

   https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/scoop-denial-scoop-confirmed-thats-business-as-usual-for-writers-covering-the-trump-white-house/2018/03/23/44c82552-2ebd-11e8-b0b0-f706877db618_story.html?utm_term=.02bda4c2a463

   1. The VOA Charter and VOA Journalistic Code requirements for Voice of America correspondents have not changed. VOA could have easily reported or even tweeted on the Washington Post story by following the Charter’s guidelines. Anything else will lead to VOA correspondents retweeting that the terror attack in New York was just a “road rage” incident or that ABC investigative reporter Brian Ross, citing an unnamed source, discovered that Donald Trump had directed General Flynn to make contact with the Russians during the presidential campaign, which was untrue but caused the stock market to dip. It was not the VOA tweet that caused the stock market issue, but you can see how irresponsible tweeting can cause problems in a national security emergency of some kind. That’s why VOA reporters must be constantly aware of their special role and reminding them to follow the VOA Charter and Journalistic Code is a good thing. Being only partially lucky one time is just a reminder that they could be wrong again, just as they were wrong before with some of their tweets.

5. The Washington Post link posted by Anonymous on your blog earlier today leads to a thoughtful article describing the volatility of this White House, and the dilemma facing the mainstream media (and yes, including VOA) covering a president who changes his mind by the minute. Since many of the scoops by the “fake New York Times” and the Washington Post turn out to be true, they cannot be ignored by VOA or VOA’s White House correspondent. Doing so would be a great disservice to the VOA audience. BBG Watch should acknowledge that its criticism of Steve Herman is wrong and an apology should be forthcoming!

   1. Same response to Anonymous 2 as to Anonymous: The New York Times and The Washington Post are not “fake” as you wrote.

      The VOA Charter and VOA Journalistic Code requirements for Voice of America correspondents have not changed. VOA could have easily reported or even tweeted on the Washington Post story by following the Charter’s guidelines. Anything else will lead to VOA correspondents retweeting that the terror attack in New York was just a “road rage” incident or that ABC investigative reporter Brian Ross, citing an unnamed source, discovered that Donald Trump had directed General Flynn to make contact with the Russians during the presidential campaign, which was untrue but caused the stock market to dip. It was not the VOA tweet that caused the stock market issue, but you can see how irresponsible tweeting can cause problems in a national security emergency of some kind. That’s why VOA reporters must be constantly aware of their special role and reminding them to follow the VOA Charter and Journalistic Code is a good thing. Being only partially lucky one time is just a reminder that they could be wrong again, just as they were wrong before with some of their tweets.

      1. I would say without reservation that Steve Herman would not report anything that he suspected would not be true. And in fact it was true, he did not suggest that the ouster would be immediate, and within minutes of Steve’s Tweet the Post story was confirmed by other news organizations. I believe he knew it would be soon confirmed though I have not spoken to him about it.
         Steve may not be well-known to readers here or others in the United States but is long- and well-respected internationally for his decades of reporting, mostly from Asia. During his long stint in Japan before joining VOA, he reported regularly for several news organizations, including VOA. He has reported for CBS, ABC, the BBC, and several other foreign broadcasters, from Canada to Nigeria. He has written for top periodicals including the Wall Street Journal and the Far Eastern Economic Review; I could go own.
         Among signs of the respect of his peers, he was elected President of the Tokyo Foreign Correspondents Club, the Seoul Foreign Correspondents Club, and was a Governor of the Overseas Press Club of America. Since joining VOA he has been bureau chief in South Korea, Thailand, and India and covered the State Department and White House beats.
         Bottom line: if Steve trusts a Washington Post story or any other, I would too and so should you.

         1. We respectfully disagree and insist that it would be much safer and better for the Voice of America if all of its reporters adhered strictly to the VOA Charter and Journalistic Code, not only in their news reports but also every time they tweet or post something on social media. There have been too many tweets with news and information which turned out to be completely false, including tweets from the VOA White House correspondent. On matters relating to national security, such tweets can be extremely dangerous in extreme situations. That’s why such tweeting cannot be encouraged and we will continue to discourage it at all times. Tweets that turn out to be wrong damage VOA’s reputation. Being lucky one time does not change the tweets which turned out to be wrong and is no guarantee that wrong and misleading tweets will not happen again if VOA correspondents are not more careful.

            Here are some of the examples of such unfortunate tweets: The VOA White House correspondent retweeted the false ABC news report on President Trump and General Flynn and even called the later disgraced and suspended ABC reporter Brian Ross “arguably the most connected broadcast reporter for some decades when it comes to learning about details of federal criminal investigations.” Brian Ross was indeed suspended by ABC. It does not matter how good the correspondent was if he or she makes a major mistake. Tweeting about a correction later does not erase the damage done by an earlier tweet with false information put out under VOA’s name. We’re not talking about minor but major erroneous reports.

            The VOA White House correspondent also initially tweeted that the horrific terror attack in New York was apparently a “road rage” incident. Imagine what would happen if in 1963, a VOA reporter in Dallas reported a false claim with regard to the assassination of President Kennedy. What would happen if the VOA White House correspondent put out a wrong tweet in a real nuclear confrontation with North Korea?

            The Voice of America cannot afford such mistakes. VOA reporters are government employees whose salaries are paid for by American taxpayers. The standards for VOA reporters must be much stricter, as they indeed are in the VOA Charter. Let’s stick with the VOA Charter and apply it to all reporting activities by VOA correspondents, including those on social media. Anything else is playing with fire and can undermine public support, public funding and VOA’s credibility with its audiences.

            https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/936630109917900800

            https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/925454484398100484

6. I think it is time to call out BBG Watch’s warped interpretation of the VOA Charter whenever it criticizes reporting by VOA. There is nothing in the charter that requires VOA to hold off on reporting a news story until a response is made to the issue in the report. In this case, Steve and the VOA newsroom reported the response from the White House when it was issued sometime later after the initial report on McMaster. That perfectly fulfills the “balance” requirement of the charter. If you take BBG Watch’s interpretation of the charter to its logical conclusion, then VOA should not report on the State of the Union address until after the Democratic response.

   There are literally thousands of articles in the VOA file which report on statements by the President without any response from his opponents. Yet you never hear BBG Watch complain about those reports violating the charter’s call for balance.

   The “balance” called for in the charter can met by reporting the response after the initial report is made.

   1. Surely, Mr. Dyar, you are not trying to lampoon our position in support of the VOA Charter and Journalistic Code by taking your analysis to such extremes as to imply that we would not allow coverage of the State of the Union by the President without airing a simultaneous response from the opposition party. (The response should definitely be aired as soon as possible, and even during the speech wrong claims should be corrected by VOA anchors if there is an opportunity to do so.)

      There is, however, a big difference between covering live public events involving the President and members of Congress and reporting on rumors. Not that rumors should never be reported by VOA, but they should definitely be reported in full adherence to the VOA Charter.

      What we want to avoid is a VOA correspondent tweeting about a false rumor that can cause the stock market to go down — which a VOA correspondent did and even tried to build up credibility of an ABC News reporter who got the story completely wrong and was eventually punished and suspended by ABC.

      As far as we know, nothing happened to the VOA correspondent, and we’re not at all suggesting that his tweet had caused the market to drop temporarily because, as we know, VOA does not have that kind of influence or relevance anymore. (Actually we should be concerned that the vast majority of followers and comments to VOA English newsroom correspondents’ tweets come from the U.S. and the vast majority of them express strongly partisan views against President Trump. What does that tell you of how VOA reporters follow the VOA Charter, reflect all significant views and represent to the audience all significant political groups in the U.S.?) But VOA’s credibility was damaged by these false tweets. We also do not want a VOA correspondent to tweet that a horrific terrorist attack in New York might just be a “road rage” incident. It was not.

      We agree with you that in certain instances it is OK if balance is provided a little bit later, but it is never OK to tweet about serious topics involving accusations against U.S. officials or national security issues without being absolutely sure the information is accurate and, in many cases, without first having obtained an official response. That’s where the Charter comes in. We really don’t want a VOA correspondent to be suspended and VOA’s credibility undermined.

      That’s what makes VOA different from partisan media of both sides in the U.S. It is written into law. It is written in the VOA Charter. We hope your were not making fun of our support for this very significant document. It is especially important now that the VOA Charter be protected.

Comments are closed.