The Times, Rupert Murdoch’s flagship newspaper, is in the midst of a firestorm. This is in the wake of an egregious reporting error that misclassified former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio as a serious candidate. Bevan Hurley, a national security reporter for The New York Times, had the unfortunate miss. He misattributed quotes to Bill DeBlasio, a Long Island wine importer, who just happens to share a name with the former mayor. Unfortunately, this misstep has caused serious reputational harm for the ink-and-paper publication and forced its editorial board to issue an apology.
Bill de Blasio served as mayor of New York City from 2014-2021. He’s been a tireless backer of Zohran Mamdani, who’s poised to become the city’s next mayor on November 4, among other progressives. The kerfuffle was first set off when Hurley’s piece falsely attributed or misquoted DeBlasio’s quotes. These unflattering quotes were then misrepresented as direct quotes from the former mayor himself.
The Times in turn has removed the story, and issued a retraction recognizing their confusion. This is the Times’ Ian Brunskill, associate editor, having to publicly lament a terribly unfortunate situation. His testimony focused on claims made in the paper that he argued violated the most rudimentary journalistic ethics. It was careless in verifying the identities of unknown sources.
“Those questions are absolutely basic. Asking them should be second nature to anyone working for a paper with a long history of trusted reporting. There are no excuses.” – Ian Brunskill
Brunskill pointed to an “AI-generated case study” on a fictional royal household employee. In so doing, this incident had already wrecked the paper’s reputation and brought home the rule of double-checking your sources to extremes. Ensuing missteps of this ilk result in “serious damage” to The Times and its credibility, he lamented.
It all really hit the fan when Bill DeBlasio did an interview with Semafor. In fact, he explained, he never even pretended to be mayor in those early e-mails with Hurley. He described the incident as an “absolute violation of journalistic ethics.”
“We can’t afford to be fooled,” – Ian Brunskill
Brunskill elaborated on the importance of source verification, stating, “How do I know they’re who they say they are? How plausible is what I’m being told? What can I do to check?” He conceded that The Times jumped the gun and should have been more careful in their reporting.
In response to the backlash, Brunskill admitted, “We should have been on our guard. We should have tried much harder to speak to the people concerned.” This misstep serves as a reminder of the critical importance of verifying information in journalism, especially in an age where misinformation can easily spread.