On Friday NBC’s Today show reported a story bearing on the assault on Paul Pelosi. Within a few hours the network deep-sixed the story with the comment that “it did not meet NBC News reporting standards.” We posted the memory-holed story via Twitter and noted NBC’s retraction here.
How did the story fail NBC News reporting standards? They didn’t say.
The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi spoke to “people at the network.” He mocks anyone who reiterated the story despite NBC’s mysterious “retraction.” Farhi’s story ran under the headline “NBC retracts erroneous Paul Pelosi story that fueled conspiracy theories.” Subhead: “People at the network said the ‘Today’ show report was based on ‘unreliable’ information from a source who was unnamed in the story.”
Note that Farhi’s sources (assuming they are plural as he says) remain unnamed in his story:
NBC News reporter Miguel Almaguer had what seemed like a scoop on Friday about an intruder’s attack last week on Paul Pelosi. The curious new details he presented on the “Today” show quickly went viral on right-wing sites and social media accounts.
One problem: Much of Almaguer’s account was inaccurate, based on flawed information provided by a source who was unnamed in the report, according to people at the network. Those people said Almaguer was incorrect when he reported that the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave police no indication he was in danger when he answered the door. In fact, San Francisco police have said that Pelosi was struggling with the intruder, David DePape, when they first saw him.
But before NBC News’s hasty removal of the video from its website — accompanied by a vague note that the story “did not meet NBC News reporting standards” — it spawned a sinister new narrative.
Farhi does not even provide a reason for leaving sources (“people at the network”) unnamed. Because of the sensitivity of the matter? Because they were not authorized to address it? Because they didn’t want to embarrass a colleague? Because they have to protect their phony baloney jobs? Because of national security considerations? (Just kidding.)
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.