一位不愿透露姓名的独立记者
“An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

原始链接: https://www.thehandbasket.co/p/independent-journalism-legacy-media-credit

《手提篮》杂志的独立记者玛丽莎·卡巴斯对哥伦比亚广播公司新闻、CNN和《华盛顿邮报》等传统媒体机构没有正确引用她关于美国-卢旺达驱逐协议的突破性报道感到沮丧。卡巴斯于4月22日率先报道了此事,详细介绍了美国根据一项新的外交安排将一名伊拉克难民“转移”到卢旺达的情况,并引用了她获得并核实的一份国务院电报。 虽然其他媒体最终也报道了此事,但他们要么在文章深处埋没她的署名,要么模糊消息来源,即使他们依赖的是同样的信息。卡巴斯认为,这种缺乏认可不仅是对她本人的侮辱,也是对她冒着风险分享敏感信息的线人的侮辱。她强调,独立记者现在是新闻生态系统的重要组成部分,应该得到与大型媒体公司同行同等的尊重和认可。

这篇 Hacker News 的讨论串探讨了独立记者在当前媒体环境中面临的挑战。原帖强调了独立报道难以获得应有认可的困境,引发了关于新闻操守、商业模式以及“记者”和“博主”之间区别的辩论。 评论者认为,新闻行业越来越注重娱乐价值,导致对来源引用重视程度降低,并可能危及新闻标准。讨论串也承认调查性新闻的资金困境以及独立报道中存在偏见的风险。 其中讨论到主流媒体机构是否将营收置于新闻操守之上。一些人认为记者往往会保护他们的消息来源,这使得开放式新闻报道的可能性降低。此外,还有人抱怨新闻机构使用超链接作为来源文件。 总的主题强调需要批判性地评估新闻来源,承认记者面临的压力以及无论其机构隶属关系如何,都可能存在的操纵行为。

原文

If you want to support The Handbasket’s 100% independent journalism, pay for it!

For the past 3+ months I’ve tried to keep my head down and do the work. I often remind myself that my problems are wholly insignificant compared to those of the people I speak to and write about, and complaining is a bad look. But even the most hard-nosed journalist has her breaking point, and last night I found mine.

CBS News published a piece late Friday with the headline “Trump administration in talks with Rwanda to take deportees from U.S.” Sound familiar? In the fifth paragraph of the story, they wrote, “The Rwanda arrangements were first reported by the Washington Post, which also cited work by an independent journalist who had uncovered the recent deportation from the U.S. of an Iraqi national to Rwanda.” Hi, it’s me. I’m the independent journalist. And a multi-billion dollar news corporation couldn’t be bothered to write my damn name.

If you’ll recall, I reported on April 22 that the US had sent an incarcerated man—an Iraqi refugee named Omar Ameen—to Rwanda via a new diplomatic arrangement between the two countries. I first learned of the potential relationship in mid-March when a State Department source shared a copy of a cable sent by the American Embassy in Kigali informing the department of “Rwanda's willingness to accept third country national removals.” I didn’t immediately report on the cable at the time because I wanted to be 100% confident in its veracity, and didn’t want to cause undue alarm if the Rwanda scheme wasn’t so much a plan as a concept of a plan.

As story after story rolled in and March gave way to April, I still kept the Rwanda cable in the back of my mind. I’d confirmed with multiple sources that the cable was legitimate, but none could say how serious it was. Something in my gut told me to sit tight. 

Then on April 22nd, a source reached out to let me know that it actually happened: The US had “relocated” the first prisoner to Rwanda. In a cable dated that same day and reviewed by me, the American Embassy confirmed: “...the U.S. interagency effectively supported a capable Rwandan government to relocate detained Iraqi national Mr. Omar Abdulsattar Ameen, who could not be removed to Iraq pursuant to U.S immigration proceedings. This successful relocation - and Rwanda's subsequent agreement to accept additional third-country nationals (TCNs) - proved the concept for developing a new removal program to relocate TCNs from the United States to Rwanda.”

The cable also confirmed the US had paid Rwanda $100,000 to help with Ameen’s resettlement and that “Rwanda also agreed to accept another ten TCNs of various nationalities.”

I double-checked with another source that the cable was legitimate. Then I did some research on Mr. Ameen: I found out he’d been a target of deportation by the first Trump administration in 2018, which attempted to smear him as a “terrorist” and “member of ISIS” who had abused the refugee resettlement program to gain entry to the US. Though a judge later called the case against him “dubious” and ordered his release, he was immediately picked up by ICE under President Biden and remained in custody until he arrived in Rwanda on April 4th.

I wrote my story, hit publish at 4:35pm ET, and waited for the bombshell to explode. Instead, crickets. I posted that evening on Bluesky:

I find myself in an odd position where I’m totally confident in my reporting/sources, but other news orgs aren’t running with my stories. Can’t say for sure, but it’s hard not to feel like there’s some distrust of me as an independent journalist. My process is as thorough as top corporate reporters.

Despite breaking numerous big stories in this administration, I haven’t gone on TV to talk about a single one of them. I don’t need that validation, but it does make me wonder why.

Nearly a day later, The New Republic was the first outlet to run with my reporting and credit me. The following day, Reuters published a news story about the US-Rwanda deal that cited The Handbasket as the source…all the way down in the 8th paragraph. 

A week later, the Washington Post published a story that offered no new information about the new diplomatic relationship, but was presented as brand new. Many paragraphs down, they had the temerity to note “Ameen’s presence in Rwanda was first reported by independent journalist Marisa Kabas, who cited a State Department cable that described it as a new ‘removal’ program for third-party nationals. The Post has not independently confirmed the contents of that cable.”

Then on Thursday, CNN entered the chat.

“There have also been conversations as recently as this week between the US and Rwanda to advance a plan to use the country for third-party deportations of undocumented immigrants in the US, sources familiar with the matter said,” CNN wrote. It’s entirely possible CNN had other sources who confirmed the details of the plan. What seems impossible is that they didn’t do a cursory search to see that it had already been reported days earlier.

And by Friday, CBS News went to such enormous lengths to deny me credit for the scoop that it almost felt like trolling. Though I’m furious, I can’t completely fault them: The Washington Post—a publication owned by one of the wealthiest billionaires in the world—had by that point obfuscated the true source of information. Of course CBS wouldn’t think twice about giving their fellow legacy media compatriot the lion’s share of the credit. But to not even name me or my site feels less like ignorance and more like malice.  

Despite all the evidence and the outpouring of support online, I still feel somewhat embarrassed writing this. I want my work to stand on its own. But in order for it to stand on its own, credit must be paid. 

Scoops don’t drop out of the sky; they’re a result of building relationships and trust with people who have a lot to lose by telling the truth. Not crediting my work isn’t just an insult to me, but to my sources who took a risk by choosing to share information with me. Having their version of events treated as illegitimate because it wasn’t printed in a media outlet with a household name is a slap in the face. It’s also a complete misreading of the moment by legacy news outlets, and evidence of a refusal to evolve. And that’s the real bad look.

This isn’t the first time this has happened, and I’m sure it won’t be the last. But it’s time to set a boundary. Corporate, legacy, traditional—whatever you want to call it—media must respect that independent journalists are a part of the new news ecosystem. For those like me who’ve proven time and again that their reporting is reliable and fact-checked as vigorously as any outlet with an entire legal team on call, it’s time to give us our due. 

I get the sense that some journalists at legacy outlets believe that one day they’ll be the boss. Or even better, the owner of their publication. They see self-publishing as a last resort for people who can’t hold down a job, despite media jobs disappearing every day. But in the same way a vast majority of Americans (despite their delusions) are closer to being homeless than becoming billionaires, so are the salaried legacy journalists closer to having to make it as independent journalists than becoming media moguls.

I’ve spent my career reading, sharing and referencing the behemoths of American journalism who’ve weathered the many storms this industry has faced. All I ask in return is for recognition that some of us have taken a different path—and that makes us no less worthy of credit.

This message is sponsored by ACLU Foundation

The Trump Administration is pushing a dangerous and sweeping attempt to control our bodies, our families, and our lives, and a Supreme Court case this term that will shape the future of transgender people’s freedom – and bodily autonomy for all. The state of Tennessee wants the Supreme Court to expand its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade to allow the state to target transgender people’s control over their bodies and lives, which will lead to diminished freedom for everyone. 

The ACLU told the court that everyone deserves the freedom to control their bodies and seek the health care they need. The government has no right to deny a transgender person necessary health care, just as they have no right telling someone if, when, or how they start a family.

Join the ACLU in calling on the Supreme Court to uphold constitutional guarantees for everyone – including trans people. [ADD YOUR NAME]

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com