The Intercept recently discovered a pattern of deception in the actions of a staff member. The employee, Juan Thompson, was a staff reporter from November 2014 until last month. Thompson fabricated several quotes in his stories and created fake email accounts that he used to impersonate people, one of which was a Gmail account in my name.
An investigation into Thompson’s reporting turned up three instances in which quotes were attributed to people who said they had not been interviewed. In other instances, quotes were attributed to individuals we could not reach, who could not remember speaking with him, or whose identities could not be confirmed. In his reporting Thompson also used quotes that we cannot verify from unnamed people whom he claimed to have encountered at public events. Thompson went to great lengths to deceive his editors, creating an email account to impersonate a source and lying about his reporting methods.
We have published corrections and editor’s notes to the affected pieces, and we will publish further corrections if we identify additional problems. We are retracting one story in its entirety. We have decided not to remove the posts but have labeled them “Retracted” or “Corrected,” based on our findings. We have added notes to stories with unconfirmed quotes.
We apologize to the subjects of the stories; to the people who were falsely quoted; and to you, our readers. We are contacting news outlets that picked up the corrected stories to alert them to the problems.
Thompson wrote mostly short articles on news events and criminal justice. Many of these articles relied on publicly available sources and are accurate; others contain original reporting that held up under scrutiny. Thompson admitted to creating fake email accounts and fabricating messages, but stood by his published work. He did not cooperate in the review.
The Intercept deeply regrets this situation. Ultimately, I am accountable for everything we publish. The best way we can see to maintain the trust of readers is to acknowledge and correct these mistakes, and to focus on producing journalism we are proud of.
Retracted:
Retracted: Dylann Roof’s Cousin Claims Love Interest Chose Black Man Over Him
Corrected:
Corrected: Footage of Police Violence Puts Heat on Chicago Officials
Corrected: Black Lives Matter Activists Blocked From Entering Trump Campaign Rally
Corrected: St. Louis Grapples — and Fails to Grapple — With the Matter of Murdered Black Women
Corrected: St. Louis Residents Fight to Keep Spy Agency From Taking Their Homes
Ms Reed,
re: Police Officer Who Staged His Own Murder Stole Thousands
Juan Thompson – Nov. 4 2015, 4:22 p.m.
[snip]
the dong – Nov. 5 2015, 2:08 p.m.
Juan,
This is a bogus claim.
With that being said, I’d politely ask that you remove noted advocacy as a means to authenticate your article.
Much appreciated,
the dong`
..
the dong > Kitt
Nov. 5 2015, 4:00 p.m.
There is a long list of articles . . .
Noted. (.. and appreciated)
But that ‘list’ wouldn’t include the *video that Juan provided to validate his claim with.
I’m referring to the ‘foolish critics’ (kevin jackson & friends) that he referenced. They never “used Gliniewicz’s death to criticize the movement”.
This in turn would require him to remove said erroneous snippet. Period.
Safe travels,
the dong`
..
Upon further perusal of said (“bogus”) claim, I’ve come to find out that not only did “They (kevin jackson & friends) never use Gliniewicz’s death to criticize the movement”, the video Juan referenced was ‘dated’ August 31, and Lt. Charles Joseph “Joe” Gliniewicz committed suicide on September 1st..
Word.
Criticisms born from hindsight are nothing more than a form of piling on. As critical as I am of many Intercept policies, positions, and claims, I can find no fault with the way in which Betsy Reed handled this. If blame is to apportioned at all, it is with the overarching notion that racial diversity is a fundamentally sound precondition to determining the eligibility of a job candidate. I suspect that because Juan Thompson is an African American, he was afforded every last vestige of doubt before being terminated by the Intercept. Kudos to Betsy for not attempting to sweep this under the carpet of political correctness.
I suspect that because Juan Thompson is an African American, he was afforded every last vestige of doubt before being terminated by the Intercept.
As opposed to the manner in which he was hired?
Obviously, a little due diligence before his hiring would have easily determined his unsuitability for such a position.
The Truth WAS Out There…
Where in my commentary was I ‘critical’ of Ms Reed’s efforts? In her article she stipulated that. .
I was just helping her w/ her endeavor..
Appreciating your concern, Loan Ranger..
The very fact that you presume Betsy Reed needs your help in further identifying “additional problems” with Juan Thompson’s contributions is at best presumptive and, at worst, belittling kemosabe. Had you identified – or even questioned the legitimacy of – Juan Thompson’s many bogus claims prior to his departure then your “help” might be better received. As it is, Thompson is already sitting at the exceedingly lonely end of his twitter feed clinging on to the false hope that his rabidly racist, one line rants will still appeal to his dwindling flock.
Well, Cowboy.. Since the noted fabrication is still highlighted in the aforementioned article (re: ‘Police Officer Who Staged His Own Murder Stole Thousands’ – Juan Thompson – Nov. 4 2015), I’d “presume” that she needs all the help that she can get..
“Had”, as in….
Or..
Or..
And..
Take heed, El Masked One. If you’d prefer not to be ‘facepimped’ off of that white horse of yours again, I’d give those reading for comprehension dvd(s) that are collecting dust on your bookshelf, a gander (or two)..
A Hi Ho Silver On Listerine Production
I acknowledge the fact that you rightfully challenged the legitimacy of the aforereferenced video in the comment section of the article in question . However, such challenges lack merit unless they are immediately directed to the intercept personnel whose job it is to check such facts. Had you taken the appropriate step at the time by sending an Email to Ms. Reed then you would be in a far better position to claim that “I told you so.”
Ms Reed,
In the future, you might try perusing the ‘commentary’ to ascertain the extent of your colleague’s deceitful antics.
Good day..
..
re: Dylann Roof’s Cousin Claims . . .
suave ? Juan
June 19 2015, 1:38 p.m.
I’m talking about shoddy journalism w/ respect to a hypothetical premise, that is the basis for this article.
1. The phone call in question has yet to be substantiated, so it is alleged.
2. The ‘cousin’ in question has yet to be substantiated, so he is also, alleged.
3. The cousin’s “quotes” have yet to be substantiated, so they are also….
In layman’s terms, this article is based on hearsay (unsupportive evidence), which in turn, amounts to shoddy journalism.
June 23 2015, 8:24 a.m.
Juanito..
Your ignorance becomes you. How is it that you know of the circumstances of their relationship based on an unverified (“he kind of went over the edge when a girl he liked starting dating a black guy two years back”) statement from this mysterious ‘cousin’? Without the ‘girlfriend’s’ refection on the matter, you can’t substantiate if they ever had a relationship to begin with, so, “got” / “stole” / and “chose” are currently inadequate terms being used to ‘sensationalize’ your tale..
By his own words and the article above, Juan Thompson is a proven liar, cheater, thief and racist, yet he gets a pass from his hypocritical defenders precisely because of his race.
But if I or any other commenter dares to mention his race – or the racist angle of his articles – we get branded as “racist”.
Have cake, eat it too, eh?
Judging by Juan’s lovely email to Betsy, the guy is obviously a racist.
Whether or not he is, anyone familiar with your commenting knows that you are.
Put your money where your big mouth is, and prove your libelous accusation with contextual quotes, or STFU.
And why so reticent about calling out Juan for his blatantly racist ramblings?
You’re a fu*king hypocrite.
Glad to see the issue has been taken care of.
It’s a shame for Juan Thompson and a shame for Betsy Reed. Neither is blameless. From what I’ve heard, maybe just rumor or bad blood, TI management is not all it could be. I do hope the need to carve out a space does not sideline the best of what TI aspires to which is exciting, nor dictate an expedient stance that buries it.
There is no shame in getting conned by a psychopathic conman, only in not waking up from the con.
Smells like bog-standard infiltration psy-op. Nice try CIA.
You guys are great. Keep humping it. I’ll keep reading.
I will never trust this publication again ..WTF!!
aw gee that’s a heartbreaker & everybody was counting on your trust too….time to close up shop everybody, “Greg Thrasher” has lost faith in the integrity of the operation.
Good away you petty lil twit … You add nothing to my witty snap shot post
Are you the real Greg Thrasher or just one of his many imitators? I’ve admired your work here, Greg. It would be a shame to see you go.
Best way to handle this, especially by leaving them up with an explanatory note. I appreciate that you didn’t just scrub the site and throw it all down the memory hole. Sort of an object lesson for both you guys and us readers.
Keep up the great work!
Judith Miller? Bill Keller?
Thank you for advising your readers of the situation. There was something off-kilter about this writer. Not only in his articles, but also in his angry, hostile responses to comments made about in discussions for each article. I presumed, whether correctly so or not, that Mr. Thompson was responding in the comments, and if it was not he, then the fakir comments made in his name would be edited/removed. After reading his responses, I was stumped, because they belied his supposed professionalism, and called into question his integrity and thus, the integrity of the article posted, especially if compared to the other fine writers that post with TI. I stopped reading anything he wrote, because although I understand that writers have a emotional bias, I expect the author of a news article to set that aside in search of reality and reason. I will keep reading. I came here for Greenwald and Snowden, and since then, have been pleased with the overall integrity for your journal.
I repeatedly pointed the same things out in comments to his sloppy articles, only to be excoriated by the more rabid defenders of all things TI …
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you repeatedly pointed out that he was not a white guy and therefore extra-much not to be trusted because of affirmative action and stuff.
Show us all that quote, you despicable Liar.
We’ll wait right here for it…
This one example, from just two days ago, is all you get, Lou, because
1) it is enough &
2) I am not your stenographer
Everybody please note what the first explanation that crossed Lou’s mind was on the question of why there was not “enough” attacks on Juan Thomspon on Twitter. Lou thinks there is one really important fact about Juan Thompson everybody ought to remember. What could that really important fact BE????? Lou will tell you in the following comment:
************************************
Lou Marin ? Nate
Feb. 3 2016, 12:10 p.m.
“On a positive note, in the age of digital shaming, Juan doesn’t appear to be under Twitter assault, which is a breath of fresh air.”
Black Privilege?
*********************************
Vic again here: right, because black people are never, ever, ever attacked on Twitter. It has never happened before
So pointing out the obvious is implicitly “racist”, but when Juan used the same phrase about “whites” it was not? How does that work, twinkle-toes?
And you still cannot provide any comments that are racist, as you implied, so please, STFU now…
Yes, Lou, the quote where you are saying that it is “obvious” that Juan Thompson is being treated differently on Twitter because of “black privilege” shows you are a racist, because his skin color was LITERALLY the first thing you thought of as an explanation for this (alleged) lack of attack.
See, non-racist people don’t immediately go, oh, it must be because he is black. Now, don’t have heart attack, I know this is hard to take but you are tough minded enough to handle it, I am sure.
Also, you don’t care enough to check out whether he is really being attacked on Twitter or not before you come up with your unprecedentedly brilliant explanation. I just spent literally 30 seconds on Twitter, not one of my normal destinations, and discovered An Attack. W O W what a shocker.
By the way, whether Juan Thompson himself is a racist or not is totally, utterly, immaterial to whether you are a racist or not. The existence of non-white racists would not provide some kind of Get Out of Racist Jail Free card. Sorry about that, hope you weren’t counting on that. Doubt you care anyway.
Luv,
Vic
This is how this works, “twinkle-toes.”
Yes….my sentiments exactly. He seemed more worthy of the Huffington Post than a quality journalism site such as this. Thanks for taking action and owning up to what happened with this guy.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out how to get on your newsletter list.
Where did Juan Thompson study journalism?
Just wondering how many times “just wondering” has posted here under other pseudonyms in order to seem like there were more of him.
The same question can be asked of you – or any other commenter here.
BTW, how high is your horse?
Funny that you attack those who question Juan’s integrity and veracity, but haven’t yet gone after him, or after Betsy and TI for firing the fabricating dissembler.
What exactly is your angle? Defender of the ” dubiously downtrodden”?
He di-int.
I evaluated mental disorders for Social Security Disability for 27 years. During that time, I read thousands of hospital discharge summaries, as well as Mental Status Exams from psychiatrists and psychologists. Not once in any of those reports was there a diagnosis of “psychopath”. This term has been hijacked by the tv and film industry. A psychopath and sociopath are both a type of personality disorder, and by definition, not involving a psychosis.
So why do you deny the possibility of a “type of personality disorder”?
It is a perfectly plausible explanation for his actions and demeanor.
There are many possible explanations for his behavior. He could be desperate for recognition. He could be in fear of losing his job. He could be a North Korean agent planted to sabotage the organization’s credibility.
Improper, immoral or even criminal behavior is not by itself an indication of psychopathy or sociopathy. Such behaviors are far too common among human beings to be labeled a “disorder”. Throwing these terms around is sheer hyperbole.
In the end it what matters is that TI handles the matter with integrity and puts in place assurances that it will not happen again.
I don’t deny the possibility of a personality disorder. I was referring to the over-use of “psychopath”. As I pointed out, a Mental Status Exam by a qualified mental health professional is necessary before one is given a legitimate diagnosis. Another possible explanation for his actions and demeanor could be that he is simply a jerk or an A-hole. Last time I used the DSM, those were not listed as pathologies.
The evil, worthless and frequently psychopathic DSM? The devil’s greatest trick was convincing us he doesn’t exist. Of course psychopathic psychologists, psychiatrists, organizations deny they exist or deny their number or deny that a normal person could recognize them. They would, wouldn’t they.
Uh, thanks…
Yup, there’s the multimedia, and there’s reality.
How DOES one diagnose a psychopath witout.a family history?
That is the purpose of a Mental Status Exam, where the psychiatrist or psychologist has access to family history and treatment history before examing the patient for orientation, mood, affect, presence or absence of psychotic symptoms, etc. Although Mr Thompson may be a jerk or A-hole in our mind, it’s obviously not appropriate to immediately label him a “psychopath”. Unfortunately, I have seen so-called “experts” being interviewed on tv do the same type of labeling. I attribute it to everyone wanting instant gratification, even in labeling or diagnosing someone. All this aside, I have to add my name to those on here who were never a fan of his writing.
Words, demeanor and behavior?
Just a wild thought…
Thank you to the Editors and staff writers who uphold the ethics of journalism. The transparency is greatly appreciated.
I 2nd the motion
Agreed. No one (or group) is perfect but this is the sort of detail that reinforces my trust in “The Intercept” as a source of information. Integrity is a rare resource these days. Keep it up.
This is why I continue to read and trust The Intercept as a source of news and newsworthy stories. The ability to be honest and admit mistakes is a rare thing in this world.
Far too many organizations would like to sweep truth under the rug than declare it openly and let the consequences fall where they may.
There are a surprising amount of comments like this. Isn’t this exactly what you should expect from a respectable establishment!? Some here are gushing with praise and inexplicably concluding the article with greater trust in TI.
But what if there is some truth hidden amongst Juan’s bullshit and there are systematic issues at TI/FLM that haven’t been resolved. In TI/FLM’s short existence, they’ve encountered a surprising amount of turnover, often with controversy and unsavory things being said by departing staff: Ken Silverstein, Matt Taibbi, Alex Pareene and the Racket team, Natasha Vargas Cooper, Ken Silverstein (God, was he bad…), John Cook, and now Juan Thompson. Editing and fact checking have been inconsistent (in a couple very recent examples, Jon Schwarz said Haim Saban was Univision’s CEO, which is wrong, and BB’s latest prison article misspelled an author’s name. This is amateurish and neither has been corrected yet.). I remember one of TI’s journalists (Gallagher if I recall correctly) chiding Vox.com for its huge array of accumulated corrections. But at least they are identifying and making them!!
If you are going to employ a bunch of iconoclasts and “adversarial” journalists, you probably should invest considerable resources in oversight mechanisms. Somebody has to set a tone that entrusts fact checkers and editors to do their job. So who at TI sets that tone?
Probably not Glenn:
Excerpt From: Greenwald, Glenn. “No Place to Hide.”
This is a recipe for botching parts of your article, and one should hope Glenn’s outlook has adapted because this is the exact individualistic mentality that enables people like Juan Thompson to take such a chance and temporarily get away with it. When you have a predetermined narrative and are expected to deliver, you will assume much greater risk.
I warned The Intercept that giving people freedom would lead to disaster. Their editors express disdain for stenographic journalism, but it would have saved the day here. Reporters get into trouble when they try to think. The world seldom conforms to our simplistic expectations and fabricating quotes to keep it on script becomes the only solution.
We can only hope The Intercept has learned its lesson and that from now on their reporters will only speak with people in proper positions of authority and will faithfully transcribe what they say.
But I fear that like the anarchist, Donald Rumsfeld, they will simply declare that freedom is messy and absolve themselves of blame.
If only one could have BOTH journalistic independence and a willingness to welcome oversight! /s
But alas, Duce says it is mutually exclusive. A zero sum game with either unfettered journalistic freedom or drooling subservience. If only there was a middle ground….
This matter has nothing to do with stenographic journalism, unless you consider Juan’s transcription of his own made up quotes to be somehow relevant. This is questioning TI’s quality assurance. Ya know – the painstaking, out-of-view, and unheralded process where an editor or researcher going through each line and making sure the facts, names, and numbers are correct; that comments from sources are periodically researched and verified; ensuring that any gaps or logical inconsistencies in the story are addressed; and then keeping an eye on your content after it is published to detect and correct errors that made it out the door.
Last time I checked, providing journalistic freedom while incorporating fact-checking and editorial oversight doesn’t require speaking to the “proper positions of authority” whatever that means in the context of Juan’s articles.
And out of left field comes….Don Rumsfeld!? Pretty shitty end-piece, Ben.
I will endeavor to explain. Each founding editor of the Intercept has a different, but strong personal journalistic vision. This is inarguably true, even if you might wish to debate the merits of those visions.
A young reporter isn’t necessarily searching for freedom of expression. They are still mastering the basic techniques of journalism. They want direction: to be told – phone this person, ask their opinion on this subject, and then write it down. Stenography journalism.
Asking them to create a narrative storyline and then find evidence to support it, can lead to disaster. Juan Thompson was convinced that Dylan Roof must have had some personal animus and produced a story around this theme. But failing to get the evidence, and under pressure to produce a story, may have ended up fabricating a quote to support his thesis. Undeniably this was a lapse of judgment, but perhaps an avoidable one if he had a strong mentor in the newsroom, or an editor with whom he felt comfortable discussing his problems. But he apparently had inflated his credentials when hired, felt pressured to go for the big story, was reckless, flew too close to the sun and got burned.
I like his quote about freedom being untidy. It sums up the whole problem of this affair. The majority of people, if given absolute freedom, will fail spectacularly. For most people, success requires planning, prescribed roles and fixed rules. A genius can break the rules, but most people are not geniuses.
Rummy!?
Yes indeed, “Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things.” –on looting in Iraq after the U.S.
invasion, adding “stuff happens” ~ Rummy the Dummy
*More hum-dingers:
“I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started.”
“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” –on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction
“Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war.”
Fantastic comment. I’m amazed at the uncritical praise.
I’m also horrified by the character assassination, use of mental illness labels and so on. I’m not defending the journalist, but he has been punished and shouldn’t have to run the gauntlet of Internet hatred. Seems that there’s nothing people like doing more than taking down someone else.
Update: To TI’s credit, they have now corrected both of the aforementioned errors and issued a correction for one.
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/26/ha-ha-hillary-clintons-top-financial-supporter-now-controls-the-onion/?comments=1#comments
Thanks for listening to your commenters [eventually, that is :)]
I 2nd that. This probably isn’t the best day you’ve had as an editor but to me it’s your finest.
Thanks and thanks for doing a good job under tough circumstances.
Good start, but have you been able to fact-check every one of the “facts” he has published in his stories? If not, they all should go. He has no credibility now. You won’t have any either if you don’t disavow all his reports.
I haven’t ever read a journalistic mea culpa quite so explicit or respectful of the best of its professional standards. A believable hint of personal regret, as well. Excellent. Thank you.
Why no mention of the possibility (probability, really) of his being a psychopath?
Because that would be labeled “racist” by more than one commenter here…
http://recruitloop.com/blog/11-ways-to-spot-a-psychopath-at-work/
So what should you look for if you want to spot the psychopath in your workplace?
Free PDF Checklist: Stop wasting precious interview time asking hypothetical questions. Download the Behavioural Interview Questions Checklist and get your interviews on track. Download Now!
1. Emotional manipulator
Playing on sympathy is a favourite weapon of choice for psychopaths.
While they are confident, outgoing and mentally resilient and rarely feel sorry for themselves, they are master manipulators are extremely proficient at eliciting pity and compassion.
Poor performers with psychopathic tendencies may frequently appeal to extenuating circumstances and pleas for support and understanding in order to shift the focus from their own behaviour.
2. Control freak
If you feel like you are being micro-managed, you probably are!
Moving people around, making them jump for the sake of it, unnecessary rearrangements of workspaces, the sudden imposition of unsocial working hours, monitoring toilet breaks, the promise of favours in return for ratting out your colleagues are just a few psychopathic favourites.
3. Charming
Psychopaths are past masters at making brilliant first impressions and charming your socks off. They know only too well the value of turning on the charm early in a relationship and then slowly turning it off to make you start doubting yourself and feeling less worthy.
If you have been swept off your feet and made to feel like you are the only person in the room, if you have felt that someone is speaking just to you, only to be left feeling confused and insecure afterwards, then you may have been face to face with a corporate Psychopath!
4. Bloodsucker
Psychopaths are corporate vampires who take you into their confidence only to suck out all the valuable new ideas that may have been weeks and months in the planning.
A typical approach is to use reciprocity, a potent influencing tool. A Psychopath might ‘confide’ in you about some ordinary idea of his/her own in the hope you then offer one of your own that is better.
Before you know it, your idea has become theirs” and they are getting the credit for it.
5. Liar Liar
If your relationship with your boss has been plagued by ‘false starts’, ‘misunderstandings’ and ‘wrong assumptions’ then you may have a Psychopath on your hands.
A tendency to misrepresent the facts while appearing plausible and reasonable, along with a lack of guilt or anxiety over telling lies is another hallmark of psychopathic behaviour.
But they are hard to spot because the lies often contain just enough truth that a spurious cover story can be concocted if they are scrutinised too closely.
6. Narcissistic
Though they may pretend concern for others, appearing warm, considerate and even helpful, make no mistake, psychopaths are completely self-interested, often coupled with an arrogant, grandiose and egocentric interpersonal style.
Relationship patterns in both their personal and corporate lives are often stormy and short-lived and “Friendships” are often terminated without warning once you cease to be “useful”.
If your boss has been known to fire people for no apparent reason, thinks he/she is more skilled, important or valuable than anyone else, or has a habit of stealing the limelight from others, then you may wish to consider moving on.
7. Teflon-coated
Psychopaths never accept responsibility for their mistakes and poor behaviour. Worse than that, they are brilliant at manufacturing evidence that makes someone else look guilty so the blame is quickly shifted.
Psychopathic bosses have no shame when it comes to using employees as expendable buffers to ensure their own standing and reputation is not sullied if performance is being questioned.
If your boss has shifted blame and responsibility on to you to make him/herself look good, then you should start thinking about whether you want to hang around.
8. Great acting skills
The part of our brain responsible for emotion is turned down (or even off) in a psychopath, meaning he or she doesn’t experience normal feelings like the rest of us.
Feelings like fear, regret, disgust, and shame aren’t familiar to them.
But psychopaths are brilliant actors who will act scared, sorry or surprised in order to manipulate others if it will help them advance their own agenda.
If you have a boss who is prone to extreme displays of emotion then quickly returns to normal as if nothing has happened, then you might question whether he or she really feels anything at all.
9. Risk taker
Things that would scare the hell out of a normal person don’t frighten a psychopath at all. In fact their unemotional composure under fire is part of their attractiveness and explains why they often achieve success in highly volatile professions like the media, politics, finance and the military.
But this lack of fear and warped view of risk can also lead to unnecessary risk-taking – think of what happened in the global financial crisis and some of the less than ideal decisions taken by military leaders in the past.
Things to watch for are a package of risky investments, unwise alliances, inappropriate behaviour, and risqué comments.
The recent film about Jordan Belfort, “The Wolf of Wall Street” is a good example of corporate psychopaths.
10. Power-hungry
Psychopaths need to control and manipulate others and so are attracted to positions where they can influence others. In the corporate world, senior management roles are ideal places for psychopaths to function in.
Any organisation that has a hierarchical structure which enables an individual to have a position of power over others is attractive to people with psychopathic tendencies – even better if they get to wield their power with impunity.
Psychopaths are masters at “managing up”, so beware of anyone who will step on those below to impress those above.
11. Menacing ‘aura’
I alluded to TV shows earlier. It’s true that films and TV shows generally portray psychopaths as intense, brooding, menacing figures who send chills up your spine.
While every psychopath is not a sadistic rapist or serial killer, there is some evidence that people experience unnerving physical sensations when in the presence of a person with psychopathic tendencies, whether they be a killer or not.
There is the suggestion that psychopaths give out a certain ‘aura’ and comments like “he makes my skin crawl”, “he makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end”, and “he sends chills up my spine” are just some of the reactions people report.
So trust your gut instincts – if you feel uneasy around your boss, or experience discomfort when you are alone with him/her for any length of time, then GET OUT!
Great link. I’ll incorporate it into a post for my blog, http://pathwhisperer.info/.
From Gawker:
What different reporter is Juan referring to here — Andrew Jerell Jones? If not, what the heck happened to Jones?
You can learn a lot about someone by how they end their employment. Juan is just making himself look worse. Some highlights:
Juan was quick to blame TI’s editors.
Pretty weak-sauce excuse Juan. Although there may be some truth in the insufficient editing statement (Ken Silverstein blamed this too), editing is probably substantially more difficult when an author fabricates quotes.
Juan then blamed TI’s white researchers in NY:
There is also blow-back across other sites where he published. TPM removed one of Juan’s articles “not because we are saying that it contains falsehoods or errors but because we can no longer say to you as readers that we are confident to a reasonable certainty that it does not, which I take to be the implicit promise behind everything we publish.” http://talkingpointsmemo.com/theslice/black-men-murder-west-st-louis
Also, why is it so difficult for some former TI employees to return goddamn company property!?
Ken Silverstein last year: “On Wednesday, I got an email from First Look asking me to Fedex the company my corporate laptop. I told them to tell me what is it worth and they can deduct it from what they owe me in expenses and vacation time. But what I love is that a company that opposes NSA spying apparently wants a “disgruntled” former employee’s laptop so they can see what’s on it.” http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/ken-silverstein-the-intercept-115586_Page3.html#ixzz3z7pcEt2b
Juan Thompson: “Ms. Reed, I also just read Counsel Oberlander’s letter. I’m not in NY and have been sick and bed-ridden from radiation so of course I can’t return that laptop—that I also broke by the way. ”
BTW, I broke your laptop….wtf!
Juan has a real victim’s complex and sadly uses his illness as an excuse to attempt to make TI look heartless for doing what they absolutely had to do:
His e-mails to various news sources keeps changing. Gawker says there are 4 versions of the one sent to Betsy Reed (Juan said: ” I’m editing as I think of more things” that again blames TI and claims they pressured him to exaggerate:
One former employer claimed they saw this coming: https://twitter.com/jensabella/status/694596960309764096
Another former employer said he lied about his credentials as a reporter for the NPR affiliate:
On a positive note, in the age of digital shaming, Juan doesn’t appear to be under Twitter assault, which is a breath of fresh air.
TI appears to be handling this very well but there is definitely a “lessons learned.” Take hiring and vetting much more seriously than John Cook apparently did.
“On a positive note, in the age of digital shaming, Juan doesn’t appear to be under Twitter assault, which is a breath of fresh air.”
Black Privilege?
Ha.
I’d probably chalk it up to his relative obscurity.
His comments read as psychopathic pity plays.
Labeling him a psychopath is way excessive.
He got caught and is now trying desperately to defend himself.
But they are not rare at all.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201601/psychopaths-work
Psychopaths show a disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others. They often have a history of being difficult, delinquent or dangerous.
1. They show a failure to confirm to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours (repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest, imprisonment and serious detention). This includes, lying, stealing and cheating.
2.They are always deceitful, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure. They are nasty, aggressive, con artists – the sort who often get profiled on business crime programmes.
3.They are massively impulsive and fail to plan ahead. They live only in, and for, the present.
4.They show irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated
physical fights or assaults. They can’t seem to keep still – ever.
5.They manifest a terrifying reckless disregard for the physical and psychological safety of others – or the business in general.
6.They are famous for being consistently irresponsible. Repeated failure to sustain consistent work behaviour or to honour financial obligations are their hallmark.
7.Most frustrating of all, they show a lack of remorse. They are indifferent to, or rationalise, having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. They never learn from their mistakes. It can seem like labelling them as antisocial is a serious understatement.
The recent triarchic model, suggests that different conceptions of psychopathy emphasize three observable characteristics to varying degrees:
Boldness: high self-confidence and social assertiveness.
Disinhibition. Poor impulse control.lack of affect and urge control, need for immediate gratification, and poor behavioral restraints.
Meanness. Lacking empathy and few close attachments,, exploitative tendencies, defiance to authority. Being a psychopath affects every aspect of their lives. Overall in their life they tend to be impulsive and irresponsible with few clear life goals. They have a history of problems with authority and poor behavioural controls. They lack empathy and remorse and never accept responsibility for their action.
It’s always somebody else’s fault.
Exclusive footage of Juan’s explanation:
http://youtu.be/8YHmUXUU2MU
Well done. Thank you for your ongoing integrity and transparency. I believe there is no avoiding this kind of misbehavior – it is garden variety deception so common in humans. So our best chance against it is to be vigilant and open about correcting it when we find it. This kind of admission bolsters my confidence in your reporting. Be the first to your readers with this kind of news; it builds trust.
Thank you for your good work.
Isn’t this a perfect example of what results when minorities expect and are given special treatment all their lives. Affirmative Action gets then into college, they are given “As” in spite of their poor performance, they are given job preference because of some diversity quota system. Everyone is terrified of holding them to account because they might scream racism. This is at the root of the problem!
I see what you’re doing there… very clever indeed… and novel too.
You take an incident with one individual, add in some false assertions and presumptions, and then use it to falsely generalize about not just a whole group but the whole system in order to reach a predetermined false conclusion.
It’s called stereotyping I believe… with a little projection thrown in for good measure.
You are correct to point out this person’s false generalization. However, it was neither clever, nor novel!
Funny how obvious sarcasm doesn’t even come across as such.
I thought the “novel” part was a dead giveaway.
Oh well.
Protip: /s
With the shit said round this way, it’s hard to know what’s what.
Thanks for being open about this.
Be careful in the future. So called alternative medias are high targets for infiltration and corruption attempts.
Yes, it’s all a grand conspiracy to undermine the Intercept. Are you out of your mind? Juan is just another untalented, overzealous regressive who tried to make a name for himself by accusing the entire world of racism. He failed. Glenn will fail. Pierre will quickly learn that there are better ways for him to spend his billions than to hire amateur hacks who fabricate stories and recklessly leak sensitive government materials. This party will be over soon enough. They are hemorrhaging money, bleeding talent and now have compromised what little trust they may have had left. Lights out
Thanks for using the correct term: regressive — also applicable to Hillary Clinton and those r-cons.
You seem bitter.
I don’t like conspiracy theorists
I don’t like labelers
This is upsetting. I appreciated Thompson’s story about his mother’s nights in jail.
https://theintercept.com/2015/04/08/how-st-louis-police-robbed-my-family/
“This is upsetting. I appreciated Thompson’s story about his mother’s nights in jail.
https://theintercept.com/2015/04/08/how-st-louis-police-robbed-my-family/”
This is perfect example of how bad a writer this guy was. That “article” is pure Ta-NaHesi Coates travel writing. It’s memoir disguised as journalism. None of it can be verified. It contains self-serving quotes from his family, and makes accusations about the St. Louis Police without getting other people involved to comment.
I wonder how many fabrications one could discover in that through 24 hours of digging.
Do suppose any of it actually happened?
The Guardian notices.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/02/the-intercept-fires-reporter-juan-thompson
And PANDO feigns outrage.
https://pando.com/2016/02/03/all-billionaires-men-or-shattered-glenn/
{Note: This link only provides access to the hyperbolic teaser used to elicit access to what appears to be a rather disturbed and willfully uninformed opinion.}
As Usual,
EA
What makes this article (pay-walled) fall into the category of faked outrage?
Because Pando is one of Glenn’s or TI’s many “adversaries”? If yes, do you not think TI would do the same if the roles were reversed!? This comes with the territory Ethan Allen: if you hold yourself out to be some gold standard for journalism, but have this happen, the best you can do is swallow your pride, take some lumps, improve processes to prevent it from happening again, and move on.
Also, feel free to ponder this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive
Empire strikes back.
Betsy Reed should resign, effective immediately. She has damaged the brand and shown complete professional incompetence. First, by hiring Juan without a background check, she guaranteed this would happen. Second, she claims he ‘went to great lengths’ on the cover up, such as creating email addresses (which takes about five minutes to do)…at ‘The Intercept’, no less…how embarrassing.
I want your job, Betsy. I will hire competent, ethical investigative journalists that will grow your brand, not impale it on stupidity.
Get your facts right before you start blowing smoke out of your rear end. Juan Thompson was hired by former editor John Cook ( who admits to hiring Thompson without bothering to check his references ). Mr. Cook is presently the boss at Gawker. As for your lame second point, what Ms. Reed obviously means, is that Juan went to the extent of creating fake email addresses to perpetuate his lies.
Fair enough, Cook hired him, but who was minding the store? No one, apparently. Now, the mea culpa? I know what Reed means, and it is a very lame excuse for an editor. This could have been fact checked and uncovered in an hour, using Google, so please…
This is what passes for ‘quality’ journalism and editorial oversight these days, and you wonder why the media is viewed in such low light these days.
John Cook just posted in that Gawker article that he is the one who hired Thompson. He said he didn’t check the references Thompson gave, but he knew a couple of people who worked with him. One phone call could have confirmed that he was briefly an intern at the TV station and had no journalism experience at that outlet. That’s just plain incompetence on Cook’s part.
Well, that’s the type of vetting, or lack of vetting, that John Cook does unfortunately.
Ahhh, that explains a lot, thanks.
I blame the media for putting the pressure on this poor little reporter. I mean he was dumb for doing it and you can not make excuses for that!!! 5050 in the blame both of you
Well, you guys need not be so disparaging about such minor indiscretions. This sort of stuff happens all the time, and even such greats as Bill O!Really, Geraldo Riviera, Brian Williams, Barbara Starr, etc., regularly concoct their stories. So punishing this BLM activist is shameful on the part of The Intercept. I am sure he will be a great asset for Fox News or CNN since he now has certified and proven abilities in news fabrication and dissemination.
Agreed. Holding a “Black Lives Matter” to any sort of standard of truth is racist. Just like giving a black person who runs a stop sign a ticket for running a stop sign is racist. We know these things would never happen to a white person.
His lies are the truth. Ignorance will set us free.
Really O/T, but you just reminded me of a bit from a Francois Villon poem I read this morning. I will share:
I never take care, yet I’ve taken great pain
To acquire some goods, but have none by me:
Who’s nice to me is one I hate: it’s plain,
And who speaks truth deals with me most falsely:
He’s my friend who can make me believe
A white swan is the blackest crow I’ve known:
Who thinks he’s power to help me, does me harm:
Lies, truth, to me are all one under the sun:
I remember all, have the wisdom of a stone,
Welcomed gladly, and spurned by everyone.
I agree with Nate – I am glad this guy isn’t getting Twitter shamed, but for some reason I can’t imagine he would be, even if he didn’t have cancer. He doesn’t seem like the right kind of target.
I feel sorry or him.
Thank you, Als. You’re the only one I’ve seen showing a little sympathy for this guy. Young? Guilty. Stupid? Guilty. Cocky? Guilty. Who wasn’t at some point? All that sets Juan Thompson apart is that he was talented enough to (albeit briefly) sustain such a job, at a young age, in the first place.
But many in these comments seem almost to take Thompson’s deceptions personally. Lesson for readers: Don’t swallow everything you read hook, line, and sinker. It’s called Critical Thinking.
I think the best lives, are not necessarily the easiest ones. It’s what you take away from it that matters. I’m not sure that that has anything to do with critical thinking.
Agreed. Holding a “Black Lives Matter” to any sort of standard of truth is racist. Just like giving a black person who runs a stop sign a ticket for running a stop sign is racist. We know these things would never happen to a white person.
His lies are the truth. Ignorance will set us free.
Wonder how I forgot to mention my friend Colin.
That’s General Powell for you guys.
Thanks for the Mea Culpa.
Wow. What a shame. As a daily reader, I thank you for the total honesty and seriousness with this situation. You all are fighting the good fight, and I hope it continues stronger than ever. I find it more interesting than anything. Will have to reread his articles with this all in mind.
Reporters at most mainstream media outlets use anonymous sources, and this story explains why: editors can’t corroborate them. Hopefully, the remaining reporters at The Intercept will take this lesson to heart.
The Intercept is a relatively new organization, and probably hasn’t yet fully implemented a system of controls on its reporters. Might I suggest setting up a partnership with the NSA? They would monitor your reporters phone calls, e-mails and texts, and then send you a daily report on who they had communicated with. The NSA is best known for its role in weakening the protections on Americans’ sensitive data, but they also take their role as journalistic watchdogs very seriously.
Just a suggestion.
NSA can gainfully offer this service to all employers and spouses, not just those engaged in the print media.
The NSA already have an unofficial ‘partnership’ already with the Intercept, no doubt, monitoring everything they do.
Well, if it was the NSA who tipped off The Intercept about the faked e-mail accounts, then I withdraw my comment. I had feared this was another intelligence failure, like so many others, caused by agencies refusing to share the information they had collected. Perhaps The Intercept could add ‘Quality Control provided by the NSA’ to their banner. They have helped build the NSA’s brand, so it’s only fair the NSA return the favor.
That Gawker e-mail screams “Professional Victim”. That’s seriously beyond the pale delusional.
Damn, this really sucks. Apology accepted.
Really sucks that this happened to The Intercept but no news agency of any kind is immune to bad ethics.
I have no doubt in my mind that when The Intercept goes on to post some damning investigation of abuse from the United States government or anyone else that this will be used against them in an effort to confuse people about their credibility.
This certainly does bring it down a notch. I feel lied to. How dare he call himself a journalist and do this. Not cooperating in the review either? He probably thinks he did nothing wrong or is just trying to hide. Hopefully future employers do their research on him.
I do wish him well. Hopefully he can better himself as a writer and journalist before he ever gets hired somewhere else.
Maddy,
In old-school journalism in which I made my career in print and radio, a journalist who makes up quotes, etc., would have never been hired again by a reputable organization.
In 1988, I had a sports writer who plagiarized a Sports Illustrated story, so I certainly understand the risks involved when you place trust in a reporter.
Beyond acknowledging the unethical reporting and taking action to correct the record, what will The Intercept do to prevent this from happening again?
O experienced one, enlighten them and us with some hints on what to do to “prevent it from ever happening again” first.
How about check peoples’ references when they are hired?
Very unfortunate but maybe a new start as a fiction and fantasy writer for someone who lives in a parallel universe.
And this one speaks for itself;
The Bugaboo That Is Advocacy Journalism
Juan Thompson – May 26 2015,
“I see myself as a journalist, but also an advocate for changing the condition of black Americans. Neutrality is a privileged position … and if anyone has a problem with that, they can pick a number, get in line and kiss my black ass.”
I’m not defending what he did, but the quote you offered is honest and truthful, and such advocacy is unfortunately necessary in this country.
If that’s what you meant by “speaks for itself”, I apologize.
A
No, it’s not. It’s not honest or truthful and this guy’s brand of “advocacy” is the last thing any kind of honest, ethical, left-of-center journalism needs. I’d never heard of this guy prior and am glad I hadn’t wasted any time reading his garbage. But in a couple of articles, I’ve already come across multiple quotes from him (hopefully he can quote himself accurately) in which it’s immediately obvious his MO was to use race both as a bludgeon to breezily, sweepingly attack others, and as a shield to ward off any real scrutiny of his own work experience and journalism. Standards are different for me – don’t criticize me or you’re a racist. I can make up stories, quotes, sources, impersonate my editor, etc, etc. because that’s the only way an African-American journalist who cares about his community can do his job. I have to present fantasy as fact because it’s the only way to tell my story… No, his work was accepted by multiple publications with solid reputations – he was given great opportunities in a fiercely competitive field without, it turns out, having paid any dues or proved himself much at all. Most people at least have their work experience and references checked rigorously. Most people have to have both the will to intrepidly dig for stories and an impressive voice as a writer. He had neither. He seems to have used others’ guilt and his own ever-present identity-resentment the way children of great privilege have mommy or daddy’s contacts pick up the phone on their behalf. The worst part is that he claims to stand by his work, does not seem to have learned or to want to learn anything from this experience. Instead, he seems to be doubling-down on the notion his race means he can make up whatever garbage he wants and its great journalism because he, the undeserving recipient of many opportunities, has been so oppressed. I’m sorry but a story where he claims to have been told by a(n imaginary?) cousin of Dylan Roof’s that Dylan was pushed over the edge because the woman he liked preferred a black man – that sounds on the surface like a sophomoric invention; like what a particularly juvenile person of Thompson’s apparent beliefs would like to be true. This country has enough real inequities to address. The last thing we need is gratuitous racial divisiveness in the service of some no-talent’s sense of personal entitlement. The last thing we need is someone advocating for made up journalism on behalf of one group – because, what, the standards for that group have to be lower? What an insult! There are so many people from underrepresented groups and from less-privileged backgrounds with real talent and a passion to do the job right. This Thompson guy impersonated one like he impersonated so many others. I say watch out for anyone with a serious chip on his shoulder trying to make a career for himself while refusing all accountability and by pushing racial resentment as an all-purpose excuse and smokescreen. This is what happens when half-baked ideas from the academy about the relationship between truth and power cease being illuminating analytical tools and instead become part of the playbook of a self-justifying charlatan and fraud.
Your comment pretty much covers everything that needs to be said.
I feel sorry for Thompson though. Because he has cancer. And bad things happen in threes.
You are using hindsight to pass judgment on his past actions as if his fraud was known at the time.
That is not an honest approach.
Your comment is thus unconvincing, and I stand by my original comment.
It depends on which part of that quotation has been the driving force behind his professional participation. I believe the last part was definitely his final destination, and regardless of skin color and ethnicity, this is the last thing we need, when it comes to the political and social interactions.
Hmm… in the context of the article where critics with ulterior motives attack advocacy journalism, I consider it appropriate and funny.
I suppose a literal reading might be off-putting to some.
But the article we are discussing isn’t on the retracted or corrected list, and it made it past the editors, so I imagine they too were comfortable with it at the time.
Some are using the unfortunate events to justify criticism on unrelated issues, and since TI decided to keep the article posted, it seems probable they remain comfortable with it.
I can certainly understand that the things “we need” can vary based on differences of opinion though.
Advocacy is necessary and should be done by activists. When activists become reporters, stuff like this happens.
Many reporters come from activist backgrounds. Garance Franke-Ruta was a member of ACT UP: has she ever fabricated stories at The Atlantic or Yahoo News? This doesn’t have anything to do with activism or bias. It has to do with bad journalists and incompetent editors who hire them without doing due diligence. It also has to do with hiring people who are terrible writers and shouldn’t be published at an entity like this, who nevertheless fit a diversity profile and are retained.
Helen Keller could figure out that Thompson had no idea what he was doing by his first article.
OK.
Let’s fire all the “journalists” who advocate for Wall Street and war.
Or, is that advocacy acceptable because “stuff like” that doesn’t offend the status quo?
HONEST advocacy is necessary. Because the status quo is corrupt is even a greater reason to be above reproach oneself. Thompson may desire his ass kissed but requires his ass kicked.
Jay Rosen wrote a piece on journalistic “objectivity” – or viewlessness, as he preferred to call it:
http://pressthink.org/2013/06/politics-some-politics-none-two-ways-to-excel-in-political-journalism-neither-dominates/
That piece led Jeff Jarvis to expand on the premise in his article, All journalism is advocacy (or it isn’t):
http://buzzmachine.com/2013/06/17/all-journalism-is-advocacy-or-it-isnt/
I would only add one more tweak to what Jarvis states in that I believe that journalistic advocacy occurs – to a great extent, as we’ve seen documented here at TI repeatedly – to influence the public on behalf of the powerful.
There are all kinds of advocacy occurring in journalism. What’s most important is not the type of advocacy that is occurring, but rather how much of that advocacy can be shown to be based in truth and facts. And that is where Juan Thompson failed.
“Neutrality is a privileged position … and if anyone has a problem with that, they can pick a number” — That part of the quote seems to imply that neutrality, being impartial, is not an option. And if anybody has a problem with his being an advocate, rather than a referee, well then get in line. I find that as a very dangerous quote for a journalist, and a huge red flag as an employer.
Thanks for being transparent… Apology accepted.
That said, my gut instinct is to look at this from a systems perspective: How did this happen? What drove him to fabricate?
This appears to be a long term effort on his part, so there must be some underlying force. Simply eliminating him will not prevent it from happening again anymore than Volkswagen eliminating the engineer that actually committed the code to defeat EPA safety regulations, would prevent VW from ever again selling a car with a defeat device.
See also:
– (NASA’s) Challenger accident
– Toyota’s unintended acceleration fiasco
– (NASA’s) Discovery Space Shuttle disaster
– (more extremely) the Blankenship mining disaster
– etc…
None were one-off failures, none solvable by replacing one person.
Yes, those are all far more serious (loss of life), but since I really like The Intercept, I’m giving the most aggressive criticism.
“Toyota’s unintended acceleration fiasco”
That wasn’t actually a real thing. That was a bunch of stupid people standing on the gas instead of the brake, and then blaming the car. The only fiasco was Toyota’s refusal to blame their customers.
From Car&Driver
The DOT concluded that, other than a number of incidents caused by accelerators hanging up on incorrectly fitted floor mats, the accidents were caused by drivers depressing their accelerators when they intended to apply their brakes. “Pedal misapplication” was the DOT’s delicate terminology ?for this phenomenon.
Oh, how I beg to differ. Toyota did *such a terrible job* with the embedded control systems that it’d be miraculous if a software bug *wasn’t* the cause.
As part of an embedded Systems class, Phillip Koopman gave the following presentation.
See the whole CMU presentation’s video:
http://betterembsw.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-case-study-of-toyota-unintended.html
Oof, and of course, Rolling Stone/Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s “A Rape on Campus”. That’s the most obvious Systems perspective journalism analog of failure.
Seems like you are conflating complicated and complex systems. Your latter four examples, I would contend, are complex system failures not analogous to this failure.
Ms. Reed, Apology accepted. Thanks for your honesty. Please take Schwarz with you when you go.
TI staff, (1) The Intercept needs a full-time lede writer (exhibit A: this article) that is well-versed in colon use (support: see front page). (2) The Intercept needs a qualified, full-time copyeditor. The person responsible for hiring should include the following question in candidate interviews: “When is it appropriate to use “less” and when is it appropriate to use “fewer”? (3) Whoever was responsible for John Cook must have had some influence on picking his replacement; that person (or those persons) should not be accorded that responsibility again. Consider hiring a consultant for this important task.
Other fans and commenters, Am I way off base? Am I missing obvious suggestions? Should I just STFU?
Love, Macroman
Jon Schwarz is fantastic.
Ms. Reed, Apology accepted. Thanks for your honesty. Please take Schwarz with you when you go.
First you thank Ms Reed for her honesty and accept her apology. THEN, you say, take Schwarz with you WHEN YOU GO!
I do not get it. What has Mr Schwarz got to do with this and where is Ms Reed going??
Ms. Reed isn’t going anywhere as far as I know. I was implying she should, though, and I apologize for being unclear. I was also saying Schwarz sucks. Mona disagrees, and I respect her opinion, so I’ll just ignore him as best I can.
IMHO, Jon Schwarz has a lot to offer…. he is one of the best, not only at The Intercept….. one of the best minds with great sense of humour….
One can ignore him but it will be her/his loss.
Clearly, due to obvious lack of ability to make him or herself clear, Macroman is in need of a “copy-editor.”
Bingo (but I beat you to it).
AND I bet YOU knew what I meant. :>)
1. chiming in here to support macroman’s call for a copy editor, generally.
2. disappointing to learn about thompson’s reporting, but the Intercept’s transparent communication & apology are impressive: a credit to the organization & fine example for other publications whose retractions are hard to find and whose mea culpas ring hollow if expressed at all.
3. carry on.
Ms. Reed –
Why are you selectively posting comments? Why not post them all?
How do you know “The Intercept” is deceptive?
It happens at every journalistic outlet and it will happen again. Kudos for doing a thorough explanation and mea culpa.
As some other commenters have noted, he was a bad writer from jump street and had little or no experience. Although this doesn’t mean automatically that he would fabricate stories, it increases the probability that something like that would happen.
“Diversity”, in the identity politics sense, should be low on your list in hiring factors.
That’s most unfortunate that you would say such a sentence JM.
Recently posted to Gawker:
http://gawker.com/reporter-fabricated-quotes-invented-sources-at-the-int-1756672849
“Sabella did not immediately respond to request for clarification. After being emailed by Gawker, Thompson sent a copy of an undated letter he appears to have sent to editor-in-chief Betsy Reed:
Ms. Reed:
I’ve been undergoing radiation treatment for testicular cancer and, since I no longer have health insurance, I’ve been feverishly struggling and figuring out how to pay for my treatment. All of this, of course, has taken up my time and energy; except for the few moments I’ve spent searching for some relief.
With regards to verifying the comments, I’m in STL undergoing treatment, again, and not in NY, thus I lack access to my notebooks (which I took for most stories) to address these matters. Moreover, after finally looking over the notes sent to me, I must say this: I had a habit of writing drafts of stories, placing the names of ppl I wanted to get quotes from in there, and then going to fetch the quotes.
(Was it sloppy? Yes? But I’m a cub reporter and expected a sustained and competent editor to guide me, something which I never had at your company and something with which The Intercept continues to struggle as everyone in this business knows.)
But, I digress; back to the situation before us.
If I couldn’t obtain a quote from the person I wanted, I went somewhere else, and must’ve forgot to change the names—clearly. Also, yes I encouraged some of my interviewees to use another name; they’re poor black people who didn’t want their names in the public given the situations and that was the only was of convincing them otherwise. That also explains why some of them didn’t want to talk with your company’s research team or denied the events. These weren’t articles in Harpers or The Nation. Instead, these are the lives of people forgotten by society and their being in public and talking to white, NY people, no less, could harm and turn them off. They’ve lost loved ones to violence you and others couldn’t possibly imagine.
Ultimately, the journalism that covers the experiences of poor black folk and the journalism others, such as you and First Look, are used to differs drastically. This dilemma is the Great Problem with the white media organizations that dominate our media landscape. As Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote: “The standard [white] progressive approach of the moment is to mix color-conscious moral invective with color-blind public policy.” Such an approach ignores the differences in the way we must navigate these various fields: including journalism.
The comments from editors calling me a stray dog; the lower pay; the being told on a trip to DC that I “shouldn’t spend like it’s the first of the month”. I shrugged it all off.
I hope you and your company can understand all this and give me time to recover so that I may eventually look over my notes. I must say, though, it’s a very nefarious and ill liberal and anti humanist position to take if you do otherwise: kicking a cancer patient when he’s down. I’ve been through a lot tougher situations than this and will weather anything thrown my way.
Ms. Reed, I also just read Counsel Oberlander’s letter. I’m not in NY and have been sick and bed-ridden from radiation so of course I can’t return that laptop—that I also broke by the way. But if your company wishes to withhold my separation pay, which I was banking on for my treatment, go right ahead. I’m also owed reimbursement from the trip to DC which I haven’t received. But I’m not angry because, naturally, I didn’t bring this up because my focus is on much more important things.
Juan Thompson”
According to Reed’s note, Thompson “did not cooperate in the review” of his past reporting. We’ve asked Reed for comment on Thompson’s letter, and will update this post if we hear back.
The Gawker piece was written by J.K. Trotter.
Wow!
This guy’s a seriously delusional dissembler – at the very least.
Spot on. “I have cancer. I’m black. The people I quoted are poor and so are liars. Did I mention I have cancer?”
Not strictly delusional – those may all be verifiable facts – but highly dishonest.
Having cancer generally doesn’t help rational thought – I’ve read of chemotherapy causing serious “brain fog” – but the non-rationality aspect here doesn’t work: he was clear headed enough to maintain fake email accounts & other deceptions, so there MUST be some more complex underlying factor involved here…
I would say let’s not quibble about definitions, but I was doing the same thing to your comment above at the very same time!
OK — not delusional but definitely the reddest herring I ever saw.
He SAYS he’s undergoing radiation, not chemo. And I’ve had chemobrain. It didn’t turn me into a fantasist, it made me take time off from work.
Recent update to Gawker article:
“Update — 3:40 p.m.
Reed has responded:
From: Betsy Reed
Subject: Re: quick question
Date: February 2, 2016 at 3:38:46 PM EST
To: Keenan Trotter
Keenan,
I did receive an email from Juan today but it was not identical to the letter he sent to you, which you posted.
In particular, this paragraph was not in the email he sent me:
The comments from editors calling me a stray dog; the lower pay; the being told on a trip to DC that I “shouldn’t spend like it’s the first of the month”. I shrugged it all off.
Thanks,
Betsy”
Are you censoring my previous comment?
There is always a delay before comments appear…trokk.
I commented negatively on his stories right from the start, stating that his slanted opinions and poor writing skills were very immature and amateurish, and that he did not deserve to be on the staff of TI. Of course, I was roundly excoriated by the more vociferous of the usual commenters here – especially Mona Holland.
Apparently, my gut instincts about this guy were on track…
Maybe. Maybe not.
You are a racist, quite independent of Juan Thompson’s sins, none of which (that I recall) are implicated. Moreover, you were simply wrong about grand juries and whether a suspect has the right to testify.
I’m a racist?
How would you characterize Juan’s comments regarding his white editors and coworkers, and “whites” in general?
Oh, that’s right – racism is only derived from the side of “power”…
This has a bad smell to it.
I don’t know…, but something doesn’t seem right. Is there any chance that he’s been set up? Could it be the case that some of these sources aren’t telling the truth?
Is the following true?
Juan M. Thompson Verified account (Twitter)
?@JuanMThompson
“I enjoyed the comment from Obama about cancer. I found out today I have testicular cancer. Let’s beat that shit. #SOTU2016″
One thing that I know for certain: COINTELPRO is alive and well. And the truth is sometimes very elusive.
“Thompson admitted to creating fake email accounts and fabricating messages, but stood by his published work. He did not cooperate in the review.”
What a shame. (I should have read the article carefully, first.)
I just didn’t want to believe it.
Why? Why are you white Lefties so desperate to believe complete LIARS from our race? Just because they fulfill your obsession with white guilt! FFS! There are people like ME who do struggle to find work plus we’re over qualified but because we do not behave like plantation pets,you ignore us!
You’re azzholes!
Hmmm, trying to come with a reason you’re unemployed other than your skin color….nope, can’t think of anything.
You get +1 internetz point for that one. Nice.
Shut up, Juan.
I’m a strong supporter of this fine publication but in no way affiliated with it at all and I forgive this minor oversight wholeheartedly. The intercept does a great job fact checking each and every story and does not normally fabricate stories or people in them. Keep up the good work and also I think everyone that works for the intercept should get a raise.
Signed
Absolutely NOT the author of this story.
Does The Intercept use factcheckers? You guys certainly have enough money to do so. Perhaps that is the way to go going forward, considering the importance of the work you do. Better to be unimpeachable when going up against the powers that be.
No media outlets do.
People on Twitter are claiming he was unqualified and was just a diversity hire. Being black and having a first name like Juan just might have made him a double diversity hire. Are you reviewing your diversity hiring policies after this? The very well may be a white working class women out there who lost her job to this guy who would have never engaged in such dishonest activity. Go find her.
“The very well may be a white working class women out there who lost her job to this guy who would have never engaged in such dishonest activity.”
Or maybe, even a WHITE working class MAN – God forbid!!!
Wow. This reminds me of the brilliant xkcd comic: https://xkcd.com/385/
Because a reporter falsified stories, Haven Monahan doesn’t ask that all reporters’ stories be checked, but only stories from people who have similar skin tone or ethnic background, because evidently Mr/Ms Monahan believes that the only reason a non-white reporter would be hired is “diversity”. How special.
It’s been very trendy for POC media people lately to say that all this objectivity and attention to facts stuff is something that they can’t afford to be into, cuz “white privilege” and stuff. When people tell you straight out that they don’t even pretend to care about being objective, you take them at their word and you assume that they will cut corners.
lol!! Beginning of the end for you guys. Maybe you should retract Glenn’s article on the “No fly list” guy who was definitely arrested during a raid on a suspected ISIS cell by Turkish authorities
Do you have a link verifying that the “No fly list”guy was arrested during a raid on a suspected ISIS cell ? If not kindly run along and stop making shit up. Thank you.
Here’s the reply by PJ media. Read the entire piece. Glenn tried to smear them because he was embarrassed about going to bat for a a suspected ISIS member. Here’s the reply: https://pjmedia.com/blog/glenn-greenwald-and-pierre-omidyar-retract-and-apologize-for-smearing-pj-media-misleading-the-intercepts-readers/
Here’s the DOJ brief that the article relies on:http://www.scribd.com/doc/296232863/Justice-Dept-responds-to-No-Fly-list-challenge-by-Saadiq-Long
Kudos to your decision to not delete the articles but to label them instead. Responsible journalism at its finest. You took a horrendous act and turned it into a model for how to deal with fraud. Very well done indeed!
Yes. Sad, bad and painful. You are right to cite the editors’sensible disposition of this matter.
Thompson fabricated several quotes in his stories and created fake email accounts that he used to impersonate people, one of which was a Gmail account in my name. – Betsy Reed
The exact opposite of a gentleman. I feel empathy for you all, especially for you, Ms. Betsy Reed. What a despicable violation!
Is all this thoroughly confirmed? I mean, The Intercept may have made some enemies in low places… if the guy said the NSA faked his involvement with the phony email account, I might actually believe him!
I say this because COINTELPRO.
I just don’t get it. WHY? These stories were generally based on other published sources. The quotes were just a minor part. And my understanding reading these pages is that The Intercept will print an interesting story based only on its summary of other works, without demanding a quote for mere decoration, some stupid thing like “I don’t know what the NGA is, but it sounds bad”.
Is there any chance he was simply sloppy, that he really got the quotes but lost track of who because he was going by some notes scrawled on a pad or something?
Hate to see someone go down so hard for something so fundamentally small, compared to what he had right in some of those stories.
Isn’t the Roof-jealous-of-black-guy story made up, though, or am I missing something?
What has me wary is that someone could have set him up. For example, an agent might have introduced him to someone claiming to be a Roof relative, and when he fails to check carefully enough, it looks like he made the person up. In theory they could have had a fake ID, a number to call for corroboration etc. I don’t know that happened but there have been a lot of deceive, divide and conquer strategies out of the FBI and local Red Squads, and this is a person who specifically was nettling Rahm Emmanuel’s Chicago, a city with a particularly checkered reputation going back all the way to the Daley police riot. So I just want to be careful, not be quickly moved to any particular conclusion — even if I don’t dare trust the story, I don’t want to rush to condemn the author.
Ok, fair enough. You have to admit, though, that his response posted above via anonymous does not bode well for any theory other than that Thompson did this to himself (not regarding the cancer, obviously).
It doesn’t look too good, true. And admittedly, even within my little paranoid model, there’s room for an alternate scenario where COINTELPRO gets a person on the inside to cause embarrassment. But until I see that or some other motive proved in some way, I feel like this just doesn’t add up right.
The Intercept. The Place where journalism goes to die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept
No. The Intercept had a rocky start, but is now doing outstanding journalism. The Drone Papers was great scoop. Moreover, the outlet just won a National Magazine Award for Barrett Brown’s columns. And, TI just lured Robert Mackey away from The New York Times.
Plagiarists and liars have beset everything from the Boston Globe, to the New York Times to the New Republic. This doesn’t remotely spell death for any outlet.
“I found I couldn’t navigate any journalism, fearless or not …”
There’s been a tremendous amount of fearless and brilliant journalism in TI since it was launched. Whatever difficulties may have faced First Look, they haven’t prevented great journalism from happening.
Have there been any changes in the editorial process since this came to light to prevent this from happening in the future?
Betsy: Although we readers are disappointed and disgusted, you are the one who has been truly affronted. He has betrayed your trust on a more personal level, akin to having the sanctity of your residence having been violated by a burglar. Thank you for the disclosure.
Yes and no. While she was a victim, it is also her responsibility to keep this from happening. So I’m not totally disagreeing, but I would argue it’s more like an on-duty cop getting mugged than a burglary. The cop should probably resign after something like that — what good is she to the people that depend on her to keep them safe from robbers?
I didn’t know there is a foolproof way of preventing this. Do you know of a perfect safeguard?
Good point. I would argue that it’s like a marriage: given the impossibility of perfect monitoring, it all comes down to the initial choice. I don’t actually know if Reed hired Thompson, though.
Also, even if there isn’t a perfect safeguard against, for example, pilot error, if you run your ship or plane into something, you’re still accountable. The lack of a perfect safeguard against failure does not excuse failure or shield the responsible party from consequences. Maybe I’m being too harsh.
I don’t actually know if Reed hired Thompson, though.
He was hired by John Cook.
http://gawker.com/reporter-fabricated-quotes-invented-sources-at-the-int-1756672849?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
The cop should probably resign after something like that —
I disagree. Thompson is a black mark against Cook, not Reed, who has thus far done the right thing in dealing with the fallout.
Yeah, saw that tidbit last night. I agree, Cook is to blame.
Maybe don’t let racists try to push racist agendas. What did you think would happen?
^^ Projection ^^
Thanks for the transparency! Shit happens! As always you interceptors are the cat’s meow when it comes to unique and compelling stories! I will be reading , RTing , as always. This changes nothing!
http://imgur.com/IefOnip
SPAM!
Great to see such responsible journalism. Other publications should take note on how this situation was handled. A simple note setting the record straight can go very far in a situation like this.
How sad. Kudos to The Intercept for the transparency; puts you ahead of some other journalistic outfits. How unfortunate that Mr. Thompson – apparently – felt he had to resort to these kinds of practices. Like others who have fallen into this self-made trap, I think Mr. Thompson would have done as well/better without the deceptions.
Agreed, well said.
Hear, hear!!
Good on yah for going after a fake like this. I didn’t read the Roof retracted story anyway, because the TITLE sounded like a supermarket tabloid.
I am impressed by how up front you guys were about this. Good job! hopefully this wont happen in the future.
This is the way to correct the record. It’s a model from which others can and should learn.
+1 for good handling of the situation and being up front in what must be a hard situation
Whats the penalty for being in this situation in the first place?
Notwithstanding my questions below, I certainly would never approve of anyone impersonating another by creating fake e-mail accounts.
Thanks for having the integrity to front-page this instead of bury it like the major news outlets tend to do.
Hmm…..wish Hillary Clinton would be this upfront with her email server fiasco and her actions going to Libya and declaring “We Came, We Saw, and …HE DIED”, that got fellow citizens killed in Benghazi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
..we nominate Betsy to be White House Press Secretary…
The job of the WH press secretary is explicitly to obfuscate and cover things up. Probably NOT a job for an actual journalist.
I’m impressed with the upfront way you handled this.
Well I’d think that’s just about the kiss of death for Mr. Thompson’s career as a journalist. At least at a big circulation outlet.
I’m curious about one thing as a matter of journalistic ethics:
Is it not possible that Mr. Thompson may in fact have interviewed those folks, and for whatever reason (and I can think of a lot of them), those folks subsequently denied being interviewed? What is a journalist to do in that instance?
Again, I can think of a lot of legitimate reasons you could might not be able to subsequently “reach” a person previously quoted, or who forgot, or whose identity could not be confirmed. Why is the latter any different, at least from the reader’s perspective, of ever quoting an “anonymous” source.
Again, should a reporter not report what he sees and hears unless he/she can attach a name, location and contact information? If so why? And why is that any different than an anonymous source with many publications, including the Intercept (but in instances and for reasons that have been made clear).
Look I’m all for a world of journalistic ethics where if someone is to be quoted, except under very limited and narrow circumstances where anonymity may be appropriate (i.e. whistleblower), that journalists and their employers don’t quote anyone who won’t go on the record under their real name. But I’m not entirely convinced there isn’t always going to be a problematic dynamic in that regard.
While each and all of your questions are quite reasonable and legitimate concerns, which more explanations from TI would possibly be useful and of interest to readers, I’d say that the following says quite a lot about whether or not TI had learned enough about the author to see each of those considerations as strong evidence that chicanery had been behind the actions of the author.
Your comment made me think of more questions:
How did TI find out about this? Did they get objections from people falsely quoted or did Ms. Reed figure it out in the course of actually doing her job, unprompted by others?
And, how long have they known about this?
I can understand your reluctance to accept that Juan Thompson is a fraud given your rabid defense of his very dubious, published, first person account (Intercept) of an alleged racial encounter at a Trump rally.
@ Karl
I don’t think I’m defending what Juan Thompson is alleged to have done here. I’m simply asking for clarity because when there isn’t an adversarial process to flesh out the allegations against him, it is no better than a “he said/she said” dispute. Having said that, the evidence that has been offered and can be presumably confirmed, from faking e-mail accounts of the boss and a pattern of sloppy work or poor journalism is enough to be shown the door. That’s the right thing to do.
But until today’s revelations, there was nothing in Juan’s work that would indicate he was lying.
And if first person accounts are “suspect” by definition then everything you and I say to one another, or any other commenters for that matter, or any journalists at all journalistic endeavors (of which there are many) that is in the nature of anecdotal evidence should be evaluated with the same healthy dose of skepticism.
As an example, the current propaganda/meme circulating that “BernieBros are the rudest most misogynist online posters” is a prime example of a whole bunch of logical fallacies (anecdotal fallacy, fallacy of composition and/or division, contextomy, argumentum ad populum, association fallacy . . . ) and often “sourced” to someone relating to others purported but unproved examples.
But if you have any doubts that racism is alive and well in America, or that Juan Thompson has experienced it, or that an adult male referring to an adult AA male as “boy” is highly problematic, then I can’t help you or we’ll have to just agree to disagree.
Only problem is, that was one of the “corrected” stories and that portion of the piece wasn’t corrected.
There was a witness to that encounter, Joshua Cartwright, and nothing in the correction by the Intercept indicates that a) Joshua Cartwright doesn’t exist, b) that Joshua Cartwright was not able to be reached for confirmation, and/or c) that Joshua Cartwright failed to confirm and/or denied witnessing what Juan Thompson described.
So I guess that’s not a very good example for you to use, if that’s what you are referring to.
Typical… even when a pattern of fraud has been firmly established, you still argue that Juan Thompson should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. I had no problem seeing through his attempt at advancing a predetermined racist narrative in service to BLM and himself – and I said as much at the time.
I didn’t read the article you quote, but “Shake the man’s hand, black boy!”
I’d kind of (I mean on instinct, it doesn’t sound real) put that in the same category of “suspicious” as the claim that Dylan Roof was motivated by being rejected by a white woman – for a black man. It sounds made up, like out of a lame, circa 1975 blaxploitation movie.
“Black boy?” in 2016? OK.
Did Joshua Cartwright confirm? If so I stand corrected.
The measure of Juan’s integrity does not hinge on Joshua Cartwright unsubstantiated collaboration of events; both could be lying. They are close personal friends. They attended Vassar and worked on the school newspaper together. They produced an audio news segment together as students.
Again, journalist Juan Thompson attended that Trump rally with the specific intent of recording an expected “racist” response to BLM’s intentionally disruptive tactics. Yet, when given the opportunity to record a firsthand example of such racism, neither Juan or Cartwright managed to get their cellphone out of their pocket. Instead, Juan chose to engage a white, middle-aged man in a way that would most certainly elicit the very response that he was searching for. All of this in the aftermath of BLM being altogether blocked from entering the event. The whole story stinks of contrivance from beginning to end.
This is an unfortunate situation but it looks like The Intercept has handled it in the best way possible.