USA Today reporter fucks up. Hard.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, at least Blair got minimal frontpage time, but this has to hurt:

 

Ex-USA TODAY reporter faked major stories

By Blake Morrison,USA TODAY

Seven weeks into an examination of former USA TODAY reporter Jack Kelley’s work, a team of journalists has found strong evidence that Kelley fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major stories, lifted nearly two dozen quotes or other material from competing publications, lied in speeches he gave for the newspaper and conspired to mislead those investigating his work.

 

Perhaps Kelley’s most egregious misdeed occurred in 2000, when he used a snapshot he took of a Cuban hotel worker to authenticate a story he made up about a woman who died fleeing Cuba by boat. The woman in the photo neither fled by boat nor died, and a USA TODAY reporter located her this month. If Cuban authorities had learned she was the woman in the picture, she says, she could have lost her job and her chance to emigrate.

 

Kelley, 43, resigned from the newspaper in January after he admitted conspiring with a translator to mislead editors overseeing an inquiry into his work. At the time, newspaper editors said they could not determine whether Kelley had embellished or fabricated stories.

 

After Kelley quit, a new investigation began, spurred by fears that Kelley might have plagiarized. A team of five reporters and an editor, monitored by a three-member panel of former editors from outside the newspaper, reviewed more than 720 stories Kelley wrote from 1993 through 2003. Each was examined by at least two members of the team.

 

A story was considered fabricated if expense reports, phone records, official documents or witnesses clearly contradicted all or parts of what was published, and if Kelley’s explanations failed to reconcile those contradictions.

 

The three former editors spent about 20 hours interviewing Kelley. Throughout those interviews, Kelley insisted he had done nothing wrong and urged a quick resolution to the newspaper’s investigation. “I’ve never fabricated or plagiarized anything,” Kelley said.

 

Confronted Thursday with the newspaper’s findings, Kelley spent 2 1/2 hours again denying wrongdoing. “I feel like I’m being set up,” he told them.

 

But an extensive examination of about 100 of the 720 stories uncovered evidence that found Kelley’s journalistic sins were sweeping and substantial. The evidence strongly contradicted Kelley’s published accounts that he spent a night with Egyptian terrorists in 1997; met a vigilante Jewish settler named Avi Shapiro in 2001; watched a Pakistani student unfold a picture of the Sears Tower and say, “This one is mine,” in 2001; visited a suspected terrorist crossing point on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in 2002; interviewed the daughter of an Iraqi general in 2003; or went on a high-speed hunt for Osama bin Laden in 2003.

 

In addition:

 

• Significant parts of one of Kelley’s most gripping stories, an eyewitness account of a suicide bombing that helped make him a 2001 Pulitzer Prize finalist, are untrue. Kelley told readers he saw the bomber. But the man he described could not have been the bomber.

 

• Kelley’s explanations of how he reported stories from Egypt, Russia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Israel, Cuba and Pakistan were contradicted by hotel, phone or other records or sources he said would confirm them.

 

• Kelley wrote scripts to help at least three people mislead USA TODAY reporters trying to verify his work, documents retrieved from his company-owned laptop computer show. Two of the people are translators Kelley paid for services months or years before. Another is a Jerusalem businessman, portrayed by Kelley as an undercover Israeli agent.

 

• In speeches to groups such as the Evangelical Press Association, Kelley talked of events that never occurred.

 

Kelley’s conduct represents “a sad and shameful betrayal of public trust,” former newspaper editors Bill Hilliard, Bill Kovach and John Seigenthaler said in a statement. The three editors said their “analysis of how these abuses occurred” will conclude “in the near future.” Reporters Michael Hiestand, Kevin McCoy, Blake Morrison, Rita Rubin and Julie Schmit investigated Kelley’s work.

 

Before he resigned in January, Kelley spent his entire 21-year career at USA TODAY. Editors nominated him for a Pulitzer Prize five times. Now, Editor Karen Jurgensen said the newspaper will withdraw all prize entries it made on Kelley’s behalf. The newspaper also will flag stories of concern in its online archive.

 

“As an institution, we failed our readers by not recognizing Jack Kelley’s problems. For that I apologize,” USA TODAY publisher Craig Moon said. “In the future, we will make certain that an environment is created in which abuses will never again occur.”

 

How USA TODAY is conducting the investigation   

A team of reporters spent seven weeks examining the work of former USA TODAY reporter Jack Kelley. The reporters read about 720 stories Kelley filed from 1993 through 2003. Each of the stories was read and discussed by at least two members of the team. Hundreds were relatively routine news reports. But about 150 stories stood out to the group for a variety of reasons.

 

At least 56 were based on exclusive, eyewitness reports, usually reported overseas. Dozens cited anonymous intelligence officials. Others were human-interest stories that offered poignant details about the suffering of war, illness and oppression. In at least 10 cases, Kelley wrote that he watched someone die.

 

To verify the stories, members of the team interviewed dozens of people; reviewed scores of Kelley's expense reports; traveled to Cuba, Israel and Jordan; scoured records from Kelley's hotel, mobile and office phones; reread transcripts of speeches Kelley gave; ran at least 150 stories through plagiarism-detection software; and examined the contents of the laptop computer Kelley was issued by the company. Phone records were incomplete, and most of the documents on the laptop had been deleted before Kelley left the newspaper in January.

 

Three veteran journalists from outside the paper — Bill Hilliard, Bill Kovach and John Seigenthaler — monitored the process and spent about 20 hours interviewing Kelley about his stories and the newsroom culture at USA TODAY. The transcripts of those interviews were shared with the team. Seigenthaler is the founding editorial director of USA TODAY. Hilliard is former editor of The Oregonian in Portland, Ore. Kovach is chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, a group devoted to discussing journalism's future.

 

Members of the team, which continues to examine Kelley's work, are: John Hillkirk, editor; Michael Hiestand, Kevin McCoy, Blake Morrison, Rita Rubin and Julie Schmit, reporters; Ruth Fogle and Tom Ankner, researchers.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-03-18-20...elleymain_x.htm

[2GOLD 0]

So obviously, he'll get a book deal and we'll make him famous.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

But since it isn't the NYT, this doesn't get play.

[Red Baron 0]

I can only laugh at the guy.

[Firestarter 0]

But since it isn't the NYT, this doesn't get play.

Does anyone really read USA Today? I only touch it if I'm in an aeroplane or something and they don't have the Journal.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

It's like, the news: Cliff Notes Version. I, personally, don't ever pick it up, but I'd imagine that it has an audience with pseudo-intellectuals who think they need to read a newspaper to look crafty but don't want to put the effort into reading real columns.

[Firestarter 0]

It's like, the news: Cliff Notes Version.

Yeah, that's a good way to sum it up. I was trying to recall my own impressions of it but I couldn't at first. My head feels a little slow today for some reason. <g>

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

 

What bothered me about this whole scandal, though, is that this journalist from the USA Today was a Pulitzer prize finalist.

 

From the USA Today.

 

Eh.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Does anyone really read USA Today? I only touch it if I'm in an aeroplane or something and they don't have the Journal.

It's cheap, it's widely available, it's interesting if I get tired of the Chronicle.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

USA Today is considered the "fast-food" of newspapers. In many ways, this paper has revolutionized the way its industry now works. For example, the color, and use of charts and graphs really wasn't utilized by newspapers until USA Today came along in the early 1980s(?)

 

What baffles me about these reporters is that they think they can get away with stuff like this. I mean, it's not like they're writing for some backwoods community paper. Their material is read around the world...

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

USA Today is news for the stupid.

 

So yes, it has a huge readership.

[MrRant 0]

My cat has a free year subscription to USA Today.

 

I glance through it every day but get most my news from the Internet.

[Guest MikeSC]

USA Today is considered the "fast-food" of newspapers. In many ways, this paper has revolutionized the way its industry now works. For example, the color, and use of charts and graphs really wasn't utilized by newspapers until USA Today came along in the early 1980s(?)

 

What baffles me about these reporters is that they think they can get away with stuff like this. I mean, it's not like they're writing for some backwoods community paper. Their material is read around the world...

I believe, MONTHS ago, I commented that reporters are amongst the laziest people on Earth.

 

Why do all of you doubt me?

 

People get away with making up stories because "journalists" are too lazy to investigate.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

My cat has a free year subscription to USA Today.

 

I glance through it every day but get most my news from the Internet.

PLEASE tell me it's in his name too.

 

I want to know that it comes delivered to your door under the name of "Mr. Whiskers" or something like that.

[snuffbox 0]

USA Today has a good sports section if nothing else.

[MrRant 0]

My cat has a free year subscription to USA Today.

 

I glance through it every day but get most my news from the Internet.

PLEASE tell me it's in his name too.

 

I want to know that it comes delivered to your door under the name of "Mr. Whiskers" or something like that.

Well you would think it would be obvious by the name "Sheba".

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

USA Today is considered the "fast-food" of newspapers. In many ways, this paper has revolutionized the way its industry now works. For example, the color, and use of charts and graphs really wasn't utilized by newspapers until USA Today came along in the early 1980s(?)

 

What baffles me about these reporters is that they think they can get away with stuff like this. I mean, it's not like they're writing for some backwoods community paper. Their material is read around the world...

I believe, MONTHS ago, I commented that reporters are amongst the laziest people on Earth.

 

Why do all of you doubt me?

 

People get away with making up stories because "journalists" are too lazy to investigate.

-=Mike

Here's a funny journalist story (or at least I think it's somewhat amusing):

 

Years ago when I was living at Sappy Valley I applied to this one newspaper in (Lewistown?) and never heard anything back. MONTHS later, when I started working my two jobs I got a call from their editor regarding an opening for a police/fire/crime reporter. I told him that I found work and that my one employer had me sign a contract saying that I had to stay with them for one year. If I broke that contract I'd have to give back two month's pay. This editor then said "So how much time do you have to give them before you can leave?" I explained to him that I couldn't (I didn't really want this guy's job anyway -- he sounded like a clueless asshole) and he repeated the same question to me again. After I hung up the phone I thought to myself this is a man that writes down quotes for a living.

 

Oh, and the first "real job" interview I ever had was also when I was at Sappy Valley. It was an interview for a copy editor position at the Altoona Mirror. I bombed the test and I could tell the managing editor hated me because I showed him all these errors I found in the most recent Sunday edition (sad thing is a few of these errors were in templates that get published every day). Well anyway when I finally got my rejection letter from the News Editor he misspelled "periodically." I still have that letter framed. To think I wasn't even worth a spell-check...

[2GOLD 0]

USA Today is considered the "fast-food" of newspapers. In many ways, this paper has revolutionized the way its industry now works. For example, the color, and use of charts and graphs really wasn't utilized by newspapers until USA Today came along in the early 1980s(?)

 

What baffles me about these reporters is that they think they can get away with stuff like this. I mean, it's not like they're writing for some backwoods community paper. Their material is read around the world...

I believe, MONTHS ago, I commented that reporters are amongst the laziest people on Earth.

 

Why do all of you doubt me?

 

People get away with making up stories because "journalists" are too lazy to investigate.

-=Mike

 

Hey! Some of us "journalists" aren't lazy dammit!

 

As for news journalists well then no, I can't disagree. News journalists are too damn lazy for their own good. Glad I'm not one of them.

 

Course, doesn't help that I consider the news people to be the lowest form of pond scum with no human feelings in their body.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Hey! Some of us "journalists" aren't lazy dammit!

You have a degree?

 

I'm a print man myself -- I loathe 99% of broadcast journalism, except for one network America trusts for FAU ... err ... fair and balanced news, and the only reason I watch channel 34 on my cable service provider is for opinion-oriented shows...

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I've always viewed USA Today as the kind of newspaper you read on the plane or while eating a continental breakfast at your hotel.

[Red Baron 0]

USA Today has a good sports section if nothing else.

Ah, so the USA Today is the same as the Toronto Sun in Canada

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Hey hey hey...I'm a broadcast journalist...more like sportscaster, but still...same damned thing.

 

I will say this though--print is a hell of a lot harder to write, but it's also a hell of a lot easier to fabricate. In broadcast, you need to show the footage, prove the interview, etc. You can't fake your way through an interview with, say, Theo Epstein or George Steinbrenner.

 

But you do look like more of an ass when you fuck up on air...ask Dan Patrick about Steve Bartman or Howard Stern.

[Guest Cerebus]

USA Today is considered the "fast-food" of newspapers.

I know you can get it for free after being by evil manipulating advertisers into gorging your gullible fat ass at McDonalds.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Hey hey hey...I'm a broadcast journalist...more like sportscaster, but still...same damned thing.

 

I will say this though--print is a hell of a lot harder to write, but it's also a hell of a lot easier to fabricate. In broadcast, you need to show the footage, prove the interview, etc. You can't fake your way through an interview with, say, Theo Epstein or George Steinbrenner.

 

But you do look like more of an ass when you fuck up on air...ask Dan Patrick about Steve Bartman or Howard Stern.

Or show lame, generic "file" footage...

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Yup. I can understand the hate for broadcast. It's superficial, it doesn't dig deep. You have one 90 second slot, and that's that. Good political stories won't come from it, because more often than not you won't have the time to cover it.

 

Hence the sports journalism focus. Work sportsradio (hah...now THAT'S a joke), nightly news desks, etc. It's far better to work in sports. Sit on your ass all day, write for 10 minutes, be on air for five, and TA-DA! You made 200,000 a year! Congrats!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I think some of my bias is because I don't have the face for TV and the voice for radio...