News
Navigation
Other Issues
This Issue
- Front page
- News
- Sports
- Opinions
- Intermission
- Dining Guide
- Night Life Guide
- Careers
- Features
- Classifieds
Buy
SMS
RSS feeds
Comments about "Squash story contained Inaccuracies"
<< Back to Squash story contained Inaccuracies
16 Comments on this article:
When I tried to read yesterday's article again, I discovered that it had been erased from the Daily's website. Why was it removed?
Herbert should not be "suspended" for his actions but rather, FIRED. The public relies on the accuracy of the media in these circumstances and to contribute to the chaos on the plane and then take credit for the heroic actions of other passengers who put themselves at risk is purely shameful! And shame on you for needing to be told this as a publication. Where are your standards?
Yes, why was yesterday's article pulled from the website? To avoid embarassment? While I am encouraged by the fact that the Daily admitted its mistake, it has taken a step backwards by apparently trying to erase it. You can't claim that it was to prevent misinformation - a better solution would have been to leave it up with a notice of correction and link to this article.
While the Daily's action to admit the mistake is encouraging, one is left wondering if the the real story has been told. Fitzgerald writes "got in the way of an otherwise controlled exchange" and then in the very next sentence writes "passengers worked to restrain her" - hardly a controlled situation. I had to research other news sites to find that FBI Special Agent Gilhooly's affadavit stated "During the entire assault, Ms. Lambert was yelling profanities, cursing and spitting on the flight attendants and other passengers,". Is this an otherwise controlled situation? I am especially taken aback at the Daily using a one-source, anonymous source for information. In fact, when I read this article I asked myself "Did the Daily get contacted by Lambert's attorney and get threatened with a lawsuit?" Is this the anonymous source? Clearly Herbert's actions were wrong but has the Daily stepped up to true journalistic guidelines?
Isn't something missing from this story? Such as the fact that Volume 230 of the Daily lasts all of one more week? So in effect, Herbert's suspension is just a week-long vacation from the Daily, before the new volume begins Feb. 1.
And how about the reporter on the original story? Was there any pressure exerted on him/her from Herbert, who was their boss? Or was this just another case of poor "one source says all" reporting?
As the reporter who wrote the original story, I thought I would respond to the above comment.
When I began to put together the article, Dave (understanding his position as my editor) did not give me much information about the incident, instead encouraging me to talk to other squash team members for their accounts and forwarding me a very helpful article from the SF Chronicle, from which I gathered most of the information about what actually occurred on the plane.
However, all of the squash team sources told me they were unsure of what exactly happened, as they were seated 10-15 rows away. All said that Dave was the only one who was close to the action. I wrote my initial version of the article without his input, but when I came in to the office to edit it with a news editor, we decided to talk to Dave to get his perspective on what happened, as he was the one who interacted with Lambert.
The article in yesterday's paper reflected his impression of the events he related to us, and we were (regrettably) unable to find another source to confirm what he said. After the article ran, he admitted that his recollections of the event had been hazy.
He did not pressure either me or the news editor in any way; rather, understanding his direct involvement in the story, he tried to distance himself from the article, only responding to the questions we asked about what happened.
As someone VERY familiar with the activities on United 179, I found the reporting by Herbert of his actions to be very embarassing to The Daily and to Stanford. As the "Managing Editor of News" his admitted mis-characterizations (lies) are completely unacceptable and should result in his dismissal from The Daily. His vulgar language and abusive behavior on the flight were an awful representation of the values of Stanford, the Daily and his Squash Team, which he is Captain. Allowing him to retain any role on the Daily will negatively impact the ongoing integrity of the Daily.
His misrepresentations take away from the accurate reporting of the heroic actions of two men who did appropriately respond to the danger and acted in a manner to de-escalate the situation by following flight crew instructions.
So am I actually reading this correctly? Kelly Fong had no factual basis for her initial article except what she read from the SF Chronicle??? Then supplemented that with false statements by one of your editors. The best reporting she could do was to copy what was reported by another publication and add lies from a colleague.
I wrote my article based on the Gilhooly affidavit (referenced in the SF Chronicle article) and the accounts given to me by multiple squash team members, including Dave.
I was also on the phone with (/on hold for) representatives from United, TSA, and the SF police department for two hours on Monday afternoon, trying to get more factual information about the incident. As they were unable to offer me any other information, I based my report on what I could glean from individuals present at the scene and the authoritative reports referenced in the Chronicle article.
Ah, journalistic integrity. Wow - a whole week's suspension! For acting as managing editor while the Daily published an admittedly falsified and unverified intoxicated account provided by himself. I hear there's an opening at the New York Times he might look into - some guy named Blair kept the seat warm.
This type of behavior explains how we manage to train an entire generation of "journalists" who completely missed the boat on WMDs and continue to fail to adequately inform the general public of our government's daily actions.
Jenny is right - the Stanford Daily is apparently nothing more than a typical college rag. And one that's a disgrace at that.
now tell me. isn't consuming alcohol when traveling while representing the NCAA & Stanford Athletics ....in violation of some rule?
I agree with some of the above statements. Why was the original article taken down? The only real inaccuracy in the article was the headline. Herbert wasn't a hero, and maybe he did get in the way more than he helped. But was anything else in the story inaccurate? Did Cate Crowley make up her story about the steep "roller coaster drop"? The United Airlines representatives said they had no information on the incident. The TSA only confirmed it happened. So far so good. Now the bit about Herbert. Even the article makes it obvious he wasn't a hero; the piece read more like a humor article. "What are you going to do, chicken bone?" "I told her to shut up, and I squeezed her arm tighter." When no other sources have anything to say, why not resort to the personal testimony of this guy? Why would the author have a need to suspect his words? And were his words lies? He probably did tell the lady to shut up. He probably squeezed her arm tighter. Did this help or hinder the situation? Make up your own mind, dear reader. It seemed fairly obvious the lady wasn't a HUGE threat. Herbert was one of a group of people who worked to subdue her. Sometimes good intentions don't always help the situation, and if he had a few drinks I can see how he might be more of a burden than help. Is this grounds for removing the online article? No. Is drinking for an individual over the age of twenty-one against the rules? No. Are some of you taking The Daily a little too seriously? Do you realize that most articles probably do rely on the testimony of one or a few people? The Daily's writers are Stanford students, busy with their own problems along with the Daily which, by the way, is just a college paper, gasp! Is there anything wrong with a college paper relying on only a few sources? No. Isn't it better there are stories at all? Would you prefer instead a paper of bunnies, crosswords, ads, sudoku, and intermission, perhaps with a story or two every week, written by professional standards? Oh, and isn't it nice the paper actually printed the apology article?
To its everlasting credit, The Stanford Daily had the common sense to acknowledge it blunder in publishing the Squash hero story. But, to its eternal detriment, the story was published in the first place, and then the editorial staff had the temerity to pull the original piece from the paper's website. What were you thinking?
To publish a story while ignoring some of the most basic tenets of print journalism-fact checking and source confirmation-is unconscionable. Have you no integrity? Have you no shame? Surely, if I wanted that type of journalism I'd return to Oxford so I could read The Sun every day.
The Stanford Daily has a duty to this community, and to the public in general, to report the news accurately and fairly, something at which it has failed miserably, especially in this case. The Daily did the same thing last week when it published the hatchet piece on the Stanford Hospital Emergency Department. Did you not learn anything from that debacle? Even if one doesn't believe that there is an obligation to this community, then surely the editorial staff has a moral obligation to be true to itself and uphold those standards that allowed the public, at one time, to repose their trust in the reportage and opinion provided by the print media.
Hopefully, the editors of the next volume of The Daily will usher in a paradigm shift which will bring to the university a newspaper that will report the news important to the community accurately and fairly. If the editors do nothing to enhance the reputation of the of The Daily as a credible source of news for the Stanford community, then surely they will only enhance its value as a wrapper for the catch of the day at the Fish Market.
We had taken the article down because we did not wish to perpetuate any inaccuracaies. Because of extensive demand we reconsidered that policy and returned it to the Web site.
Kelley - Kelley - Kelley!
In your first response you indicated that you relied on "a very helpful article from the SF Chronicle, from which I gathered most of the information about what actually occurred on the plane." You then changed your story in your second post to say "I wrote my article based on the Gilhooly affidavit (referenced in the SF Chronicle article) and the accounts given to me by multiple squash team members, including Dave." However, in your first post, while referring to the other squash team members, you said, "all of the squash team sources told me they were unsure of what exactly happened, as they were seated 10-15 rows away."
I can't help, but to think that you are now changing your story, just like Herbert did, once you have been called out about the details of your account of the story. I am wondering if your initial "recollections of the event had been hazy." Sound familiar????
It appears that with a very small amount of investigatory effort, you would have been able to obtain an actual copy of the FBI affidavit to use as a source, rather than using another news publication as your primary source. Many of the other stories written about this incident cited the affidavit. I am very confident these other publications did not just read the SF Chronicle article and paraphrase what was said.
I think you may have learned a valuable lesson. Just because someone says something, especially a dishonest, self-promoting Managing Editor, you should still verify with a independent third-party. In the academic world, integrity and honesty are paramount, and a failure in this area is utterly unacceptable.
By "what actually occurred on the plane," I meant Lambert's interactions with flight crew and passengers. It is true that these specifics, which came from the Chronicle article, constituted a large part of the article I wrote, but these details were not the entire story - a conscious decision, as this is a Stanford paper that aims to make stories like this relevant to the campus communty. The article also included the experiences of squash team members and coaches on the plane, whether it was regarding their level of fear or the plane's steep descent. Just because these players could not comment on the dialogue exchanged between Lambert and the flight crew did not mean they were unqualified to speak about their experiences as passengers on the plane.