A White House correspondent for Newsmax sent a full article he planned to publish about President Trump’s voter fraud commission to the head of that commission for review, according to new documents released on Friday.
John Gizzi emailed commission chief Kris Kobach, the full text of his article, including Kobach’s own quotes, and asked him to review it and make sure it checked out.
The article, ultimately published as “States Cooperating With Election Fraud Investigation” appeared on Newsmax on July 25, 2017 — the same day as his email to Kobach.
The issue was first brought to wide public attention by ProPublica reporter Jessica Huseman, who noted that the move would be “a fireable offense at every single news organization I have worked for or with.”
https://twitter.com/JessicaHuseman/status/1026155930319286278
Gizzi, one of the most visible employees at the conservative media company Newsmax, has become a staple at White House press conferences and is known for his distinctive drawl and old-fashion style. He is one of White House press secretary Sarah Sanders’ favorite journalists and will routinely call on him for questions during briefings.
In a statement to TheWrap, Newsmax chief Chris Ruddy said Gizzi’s behavior did not follow “standard practice” at the company and insisted that sources like Kobach were never allowed any editorial oversight over content.
“In the past some reporters have felt comfortable sending a full article to a source (or expert) as John Gizzi did in this case, however this is not our standard practice and we do not promise these sources or experts editorial control,” said Ruddy. “Newsmax strives for accuracy and retains full editorial control over its material.”
Ruddy did not say if Newsmax was aware of Gizzi’s activity beforehand or whether the veteran newsman will face any consequences.
Gizzi did not respond to inquiries from TheWrap, but he did get into it with Huseman on Twitter.
“If a reporter doesn’t record, it is a good policy to run quotes past subject & thus avoid “corrections” & “retractions” from subbject later,” said Gizzi. “Along w. sending to the subject to check his quotes, I sent WHOLE ARTICLE to election law experts Jay O’Callaghan & Hans von Soakovsky to double check complex terms he used on voter I’D.”
Gizzi mostly sidestepped the issue of sending his full article, focusing instead on sending the quotes, which is a practice some news organizations, particularly the New York Times, prohibit.
You can read the full argument below.
If a reporter doesn’t record, it is a good policy to run quotes past subject & thus avoid “corrections” & “retractions” from subbject later. Good lesson from late Richard Ben Cramer for his book “What it Takes.” Dole, Bush etc. said controvsrsial stuff & he ran it past them.
— John Gizzi (@johngizzi) August 5, 2018
You didn’t just run the quotes. You sent the entire article to Kobach for approval. That’s not normal.
— Jessica Huseman (@JessicaHuseman) August 5, 2018
You’ve obviously an answer that you’re trying to justify. Along w. sending to the subject to check his quotes, I sent WHOLE ARTICLE to election law experts Jay O’Callaghan & Hans von Soakovsky to double check complex terms he used on voter I’D. I hope you Don’t have a problem.
— John Gizzi (@johngizzi) August 5, 2018
If one doesn’t record interviews-which I now do always–it is a good idea to run quotes past them. I don’t mind sending a full article w. the caveat that all that is subject to change are their words. In ’13, I misquoted someone & felt terrible about it. I said “never again.”
— John Gizzi (@johngizzi) August 5, 2018
That caveat didn’t exist in your email to Kobach.
— Jessica Huseman (@JessicaHuseman) August 5, 2018
I certainly told him that–as I did Hugh Hefner in 2000–when I began the interview & said I wasn’t recording (which I feel one has to disclose one way or another).
— John Gizzi (@johngizzi) August 5, 2018
It’s not clear to me, why if all that is subject to change is the quotes, you cannot just send the quotes themselves. You have to know that the practice you are describing is absolutely not industry standard.
— Jessica Huseman (@JessicaHuseman) August 5, 2018
You should come to my talk to the National Journalism Ctr. If you can’t record–which I do almost always now–it is wise to read quotes back. Before email, I used to read quotes on phone. I’ll try to dig up letter from Hugh Hefner in 2000 thanking me for accuracy in interview.
— John Gizzi (@johngizzi) August 5, 2018
Again, that’s achievable by sending quotes and not the full article. It’s unclear to me why you are ignoring that.
— Jessica Huseman (@JessicaHuseman) August 5, 2018
And apologies if I don’t take my journalism ethics guidance from Hugh Hefner. You cannot be serious.
— Jessica Huseman (@JessicaHuseman) August 5, 2018
Again, you have a conclusion & don’t listen to any. As I said, please come hear my lecture at the NJC. Or read about the late interviewer par excellence Oriana Falaci.
— John Gizzi (@johngizzi) August 5, 2018
Yes, John. I think it is fundamentally unethical to share your full story with your source–something in other tweets you’ve said you “mostly” agree with me on. That you justify this practice, which is deeply out of step w everyone else, in your own lectures is unpersuasive to me.
— Jessica Huseman (@JessicaHuseman) August 5, 2018
You are not listening. Final words: I run quotes past people when I Don’t record. Have done it by phone for yrs & more recently by fax and email. And it is w. pros on all sides of spectrum–from KOBACH TO HEFNER. AND WHY YOU ARE WELLING ON THIS & TWISTING MEANING IS BEYOND ME.
— John Gizzi (@johngizzi) August 5, 2018