Just Out: "Subject to Debat: What Did ABC Know, and When Did It Know It?"

... Interviews with journalists, think tank associates, and a former government official indicate that there were warning signs about Debat for years—even within the network itself. Two journalists familiar with Debat’s work point to ABC chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross not only as the victim of Debat’s alleged deceptions, but as an enabler, who has promoted sensational stories—including some that Debat brought the network—at the expense at times of rigorous journalism standards. (Ross did not return Mother Jones’ phone call by press time, although an ABC executive has been in touch by phone and email.) They also say that they do not believe ABC has properly investigated Debat’s reporting at all.

The two key questions to ask ABC, one source familiar with Ross’ unit who asked to speak on background, are: “How is ABC investigating the information: Is it only being investigated by the Ross unit, or are outside reporters doing it? And in vetting or second-sourcing information brought to the network [by Debat], were resources outside of the Ross unit used?” The AP reported late Thursday that ABC was sending long time Ross producer Rhonda Schwartz to Pakistan to investigate some of Debat’s stories.

Overall, the picture of Debat that emerges from these interviews is of a smart, ambitious and cunning operator who would claim to be getting text messages from Middle Eastern intelligence operatives while at meetings with Ross and others at ABC, with tips that seemed too good to be true (which some colleagues believe were bogus), yet were used as “exclusives.”

Sources provided multiple examples of stories that Ross—often with Debat’s contributions—reported, only to be forced to run a correction the next day. For instance, one source noted, on September 5 last year, Ross reported that a Pakistani general had said that Pakistan would leave Osama bin Laden alone as long as he didn’t cause any trouble. The Pakistani government angrily denied it, and the next day the ABC investigative unit’s blog, the Blotter ran a correction.

Another ABC news story largely sourced to Debat – claiming that the U.S. government was advising and encouraging an Iranian Baluchi separatist group Jundullah which was carrying out attacks against the Iranian regime – was followed by an ABC report the next day carrying a "sharply-worded" denunciation from the Pakistani government.

One ethical issue raised by ABC's handling of Debat concerns the investigative unit's use of paid sources and consultants, who are often put on monthly retainer. But in ABC's use of Debat as a paid consultant who also had for the past year and a half an appointment at the Nixon Center, ABC also frequently had him reporting as a seeming journalist on its blog, the Blotter, and appearing as a "source" inside other stories, blurring the line between source (and a paid one at that, with outside -- also paid -- affiliations) and a journalist, not clearly identified in the report. ABC also sent Debat frequently abroad, to gather information which he would put on the air and on the investigative unit's website. ...

And among my scooplets, this: "Sources say that Debat claimed in the spring to have received a 'large chunk of money' from the Pentagon to conduct a study concerning radical Islam; when I inquired about the contract, Defense Department officials said they would check into it."

Stay tuned . . . and I can be contacted here.

Update: Here is the "Washington Dispatch" version of the piece, subhedline: "The network says it acted quickly when it discovered consultant Alexis Debat had misrepresented his credentials. But sources say a real investigation of his work is beginning only now."

More questions for ABC:

How did ABC choose to use Debat as a consultant, and also on the blog as a reporter, also sometimes citing him as a source?

Did ABC inform its viewers and readers that Debat had a Pentagon contract? How clear was ABC in telling readers/viewers about Debat's multiple paid affiliations?

What other consultants have this sort of arrangement with ABC? Will ABC be more transparent in the future about whether its sources are being paid, what are the relevant other potential conflicts of interest in terms of paid other appointments and contracts?

Why is ABC only sending an investigator to Pakistan to investigate Debat's reports now? History shows that people who misreprsent their resumes tend to misrepresent lots of other things as well. Why do my sources say ABC did not conduct a more extensive investigation of his work when it asked him to resign back in June? Why had it not contacted until now other reporters who could help investigate his reports? ...

A longer list here. As I write at the end, "One good thing has according to sources apparently come of the recent reports, including Riche's. Finally, three months after dismissing him, ABC finally appears to be undertaking a serious investigation of the accuracy of reports Debat contributed to. It's just curious it didn't do so when it learned of misrepresentations with his CV back in June when it asked him to resign."

Posted by Laura at September 14, 2007 02:57 AM