More Questions for ProPublica
Its officials say they will 'have no further comment' on their gravely flawed Lab Leak article. Here is what I would ask them, if I could.
I have long-standing, deep admiration for ProPublica as a civic and journalistic institution. Many of my friends and colleagues work there. I wish them only the best.
I did not admire or even respect a splashy ProPublica / Vanity Fair project back in October, which was based on leads from unnamed Republican Senate staffers and purported to have insights into the “secret language” of Chinese Communist Party schemes. I laid out the reasons for skepticism in this previous post, based largely on an interview with the longtime Chinese translator Brendan O’Kane.
As I noted in that piece, I requested an interview about the story with Stephen Engelberg, ProPublica’s editor-in-chief. I was told that he was “not available this week.”
I’ve written to request an interview with Mr. Engelberg next week—or failing that, with anyone who could speak on-the-record about the editorial process for this article and the follow-up Editor’s Note.
Alexis Stephens, the head of communications for ProPublica, wrote back this afternoon to say:
We don’t plan to comment beyond the editor’s note to readers, which was a comprehensive explanation of our process and findings.
OK. I think this is a huge mistake, for an organization dedicated to transparency and accountability. ProPublica has a great reputation, which it is eroding with its handling of this article. For instance: the next person who is visited by a ProPublica reporter with inconvenient questions can say, “As your boss would put it, I don’t plan to comment.”
Instead I’ll provide, without elaboration, a list of the questions I would have asked Stephen Engelberg or his colleagues, if they had consented to talk.
(Not to rub this in, but … to rub it in: Let’s remember that ProPublica is a journalistic institution based on the assumption that officials of other institutions should and will answer questions about their decisions. But now it won’t entertain questions about its own decisions. This is not a good call.)
Questions someone at ProPublica should answer, some day.
Part one, questions about the story itself:
How did ProPublica get interested in the story to begin with? It was originally a venture by a Senate Republican staff team. At what point did this become a legitimate journalistic project for ProPublica?
Why was Vanity Fair involved as a partner in the project? Had they already developed a story in this vein? Why was this a collaboration with ProPublica? Did Vanity Fair have any significant role in the original vetting of the story, or the follow-up? Which organization was responsible for editors’ checking and sign-off?
What was the “additional material” that ProPublica and Vanity Fair worked from? The story mentions documents from the Republican staff, and then said there was extra material PP and VF worked from. Was this also material from “minority staff” members that didn’t make it into the committee report? Was it original reporting? What were the standards for finding it significant?
How did ProPublica verify the claims of Toy Reid to be uniquely expert in Chinese Communist Party language? The story depends heavily on the claims of one person, Toy Reid, to be a uniquely insightful interpreter of official Chinese language. Did you check his claims with any outside sources? How, specifically, did you do that? Did you send the text of the article, or did you ask for a yes-or-no response to summaries of his claims? Were outside authorities asked just whether the things being claimed were "plausible," or did you ask for more specific evaluations? Did you ask any experienced China-world figures about his claim that official Chinese discourse was a “secret language,” which only he understood?
Funding factors. It’s a matter of public record that Sam Bankman-Fried, the disgraced crypto-tycoon, funded this and other investigative projects at ProPublica on “pandemic preparedness” themes, for $5 million. Is there anything relevant about how this funding affected the project and its approach?
Part two, questions about the Editor’s Note:
Who conducted the review that led to the Editor’s Note? Was it the same people who had made the original decisions about the story? (So they were conducting oversight of their own choices?) Or was there any “outside” view — from another part of ProPublica, or from outside the organization?
Why were the translators not named? ProPublica said it had referred the translation to three other authorities, who found the ProPublica version “plausible.” Why were none of them named? Would they agree to be named now?
Why did you not give the specific translations these other sources had offered? Given the emphasis on translation details, would that not have been an important step toward transparency?
What were the standards for considering translations “plausible,” as the Editor’s Note said? And what were the criteria for saying that one of your later experts produced a translation “in line with” the one you relied on? Why not provide the actual transcripts, so outsiders can judge?
Why did you not mention the translation issue of “three No’s, three Yes’es” This is a small-sounding but very consequential issue about the original article, and the editor’s note. The critics’ claim is that the original translation cut off a Chinese quote, misleadingly, in mid-sentence. The Editor’s Note does not mention that. Why not?
Why did you dismiss the issue of virtually identical language found in a Communist Party document many months before the alleged “lab leak”? Did this issue come up in the editing process? How was it resolved?
Part three, questions about transparency:
There’s just one in this category:
How can a journalistic organization dedicated to transparency and accountability refuse to answer any questions about its handling of what it presented as a hugely consequential story?
Those are the questions. I hope someone gets a chance to ask them, or hear the answers.
Here are two free-advice points from me, Jim Fallows:
ProPublica could wrap up this controversy in half-an-hour by saying: we made a mistake, we doubled-down, we recognize the error and will try to understand what went wrong.
Until it takes that step, ProPublica’s otherwise-outstanding reputation will be stained by its misjudgment on this story, and—more importantly—by its stonewalling refusal to acknowledge any error.
“It’s never the crime, it’s the cover-up…” This is an error in a realm that matters, both for U.S.-China stakes and as an example of journalistic accountability.
IRS forms, Guidestar 990 forms, charitable 501c3 designation and reporting:
A nonprpofit has to record that 5 mil payment or donation on its nonprofit form filed with the IRS. It has to account for how the money was spent down to the penny. How did the money get spent? What was it for? It is all in the public record filing of the nonprofit. Find their funding and expenses.
This nonprofit that is supposed to be ethical in its own lane, got into another lane.
The question about why was the money given, was it given to the nonprofit charitable arm of a 501c3 organization and was the donation reported in its docs to the IRS - that can cause a coverup. In spy stories, the foreign government does this for blackmail. To undermine American left media.
Is this the only donation is another question.
Their nonprofit status and the org's existence is being threatened with these questions. Many nonprofit organizations have problems with large assets - recording, and following IRS nonprofit guidelines. 36 million is a lot of moolah for pp assets.
Note the incredibly large assets reported by this nonprofit, as they follow their mandate to help the downtrodden. Close examination of the expenses may reveal more. That may be part of the stonewalling. And a very good reason for reporting laws for all 501c3's. In a famous case from the last century, the head of United Way was using their nonprofit funds for his romance with an underage girl, including providing her with an apartment on UWay funds. Not at all uncommon, unfortunately, in the nonprofit world, for a nonprofit with such large assets reported. Guidestar was created by the foundations in order to police their own. 501c3 problems can be legion.
Not many understand that the Board of Directors of a nonprofit are individually and 100% liable for any oversight errors, such as financial reporting problems. They are 100% responsible and liable for all aspects of the nonprofit activities.
International gov foes like to acquire US news orgs too! The involvement of the GOP could be a long game to undermine progressive media. In the spy novels, blackmail is common in these scenarios. Let's hope there is a good explanation. Why was the gop involved in this?
This is not a case where, like they say in the Old West jails, "no noose is good noose." We need transparency. Stonewalling is making it worse and the Board of Directors is the ultimate authority in running that nonprofit, so the buck stops there. Ask the President of the Board about their mandate which is to advocate for transparency.
"Meet the U.S. Officials Now in China’s Sphere of Influence" Daily Beast
BUYING POWER
There's a slew of one-time U.S. politicians and officials who have lobbied for China or whose business interests are closely connected to it.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-the-us-officials-who-now-lobby-for-china
Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian
Updated Nov. 21, 2018 4:50PM
"Beijing has also learned how to harness its economic might by alternately opening its doors to companies who play by China’s rules, and slamming the door on companies that go against its red lines. In some cases, this grants Beijing powerful sway over foreign companies with business interests in China. This has raised concerns that current U.S. government officials may have an eye on their future prospects in China even before leaving office."
“Nobody in the 1980s would have represented the Russian government. And now you find so many lobbying for the Chinese government,” said Frank Wolf, a retired U.S. representative from Virginia who long served as the co-chairman of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. “I served in Congress for 34 years. I find it shocking.”
All about the benjamins, James, n'est-ce pas? Verdad?
enjoy your day! Big snowstorm coming to ski country in the cold north!
Charitable watchdog and reporting org, online 990 report:
https://www.guidestar.org/search (charitable watchdog and reporting org, online 990 report)
PRO Publica, Inc. Silver
ProPublica
New York City, NY|EIN: 14-2007220
GROSS RECEIPTS info
$36,838,949
ASSETS
$60,782,681
Pro Publica site, 990 Charitable reporting forms here:
https://assets-c3.propublica.org/pdf/reports/2021-Pro-Publica-Form-990.pdf
2021: Pro Publica https://assets-c3.propublica.org/pdf/reports/2021-Pro-Publica-Form-990.pdf
$36,005,300
2021
IRS form 990: purpose of org:
"TO EXPOSE ABUSES OF POWER AND BETRAYALS OF THE PUBLIC TRUST. BY GOVERNMENT, BUSINESS, AND OTHER "