Open letter to journalist Nick Pisa

This entry was posted on
Tuesday, October 4th, 2011
at
8:11 am and is filed
under Old Media.

Morning, folks. I have decided to email Nick Pisa about his conduct last night, when through the Daily Mail he reported how a series of people reacted to an event that never happened.

from Tim Ireland
to nickpisa[AT]yahoo.com
date Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:56 AM
subject Your talent for invention

Dear Nick,

Do you have any response to the evidence that you and relevant Daily Mail staff were prepared to go to print with [an] entirely invented accounts of events, reactions and statements that you could not possibly have witnessed?
http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2011/10/03/invented-eyewitness-accounts/

This is what I have prepared in advance;

“Oh, do calm down; EVERYBODY does it,” said a clearly emotional Pisa before calling his critics names and running away.

If you would prefer me to report something you actually said, rather than what I expected you to say, then please do get in touch.

Cheers

Tim Ireland
www.bloggerheads.com

I’ve already received a genuine response while preparing this post, and I look forward to publishing it shortly.

UPDATE – Nick Pisa is now suggesting that I contact the Daily Mail for a response (on the basis that they published what he imagined) but for the record, this is a summary of what he had to say for himself about the above. These are key extracts from a wider email conversation, but if Nick is worried about being quoted out of context, I would be delighted to publish the entire exchange if he so requests.

Nick Pisa: “If you knew anything about reporting and not blogging then you would know two versions are written for court stories on deadline. Also as you are so web obsessed then you will have seen several news organisations made the same mistake.”

Tim Ireland: “I did see others making a similar mistakes re: the verdict, but this is entirely distinct from inventing reactions and statements made in ‘response’ to something that hadn’t happened. Are you saying that you’ve done this before and you regard it to be acceptable?”

Nick Pisa: “No. Now you are twisting my words. It is a version that is fine tuned before being sent for publication or online… To be honest I think it’s best you get a response from the Mail. They posted it. I have told you what happened. I do not recall name calling in fact the jeering was from your side as I recall ! I did not run away. I did not see the point in discussing it and I am as angry as you are.”

I’m especially delighted that Nick took offence at my imagined version of his reaction before not calling me names and not running away. :o)

UPDATE (8pm) – The Daily Mail have expanded on their earlier statement (amounting to a blatantly false and entirely irrelevant claim about the ‘guilty’ story being up for only 90 seconds; something they persist with at their peril, as it undermines their denial) and have added the following to their site:

Confusion over the judge’s announcement meant Sky News and several news websites, including Mail Online, briefly reported incorrectly that Knox had been found guilty.

This was corrected just over a minute later when it became apparent that he had said she was guilty of slander before going on to say both Knox and Sollecito were innocent of Meredith’s murder.

We apologise for the error and have launched an enquiry to examine our procedures.

It is common practice among newspapers to prepare two versions of an article ahead of a court verdict and these are known as ‘set and hold’ pieces.

We would like to make it clear that Nick Pisa had no involvement in the decision to publish his set and hold piece on MailOnline.

The quotes were obtained from various parties in the event of either a guilty or not guilty verdict.

So the reactions to a guilty verdict that never came… were they obtained ahead of time, too? Perhaps Pisa based these sections of his piece on reactions to the slander verdict…

Amanda Knox looked stunned this evening after she dramatically lost her prison appeal against her murder conviction.

… but if this is the case, it makes no sense for these accounts of reactions to a verdict to be in a ‘set and hold’ piece, because the writer would at the time have been responding thinking he had a verdict.

UPDATE (06 Oct) – I urge you to read the unfolding comments, and when a clearer picture emerges I expect to update the body of this post with any crucial elements (i.e. instead of deleting it and pretending it never happened, as some tabloids are wont to do). At this time, it appears entirely possible that Nick Pisa at least acted in good faith, and with some rigour, though we may not see any relevant details until after the Daily Mail have conducted their internal investigation. Scare quotes from ‘journalist’ in my headline have subsequently been snipped to remove the likelihood of the man being judged by this alone.

(Many people only read headlines/link text. Many others will read a post only, and not the comments, which is why vital corrections belong in the body of a post if/when they emerge, and why headlines should be corrected in line with changes to content. IMO.)

UPDATE (4 Oct 2016)- Nick Pisa never got back to me about the outcome of the Daily Mail investigation that kicked the issue into the long grass. I was not inclined to contact him, as I was anonymously being accused of harassing him through publication of this article at the time (*deep sigh*). However, today I note that the man has become very popular for his unique brand of journalism where key facts don’t get checked and the resulting headlines are never his fault:

Amanda Knox Netflix documentary: The journalist people are branding the real villain – Former Daily Mail reporter Nick Pisa revealed he didn’t fact check key information

In other news, it is 5 years to the day since I wrote the original article. Happy birthday, lil’ article.

=








About Tim Ireland

Tim is the sole author of Bloggerheads.
This entry was posted in Old Media. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments (63)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
He really doesn't get it, does he...
1 reply · active 437 weeks ago
Carole aka Robmam's avatar

Carole aka Robmam · 698 weeks ago

Excellent piece Tim.
The point isn't that a draft was written, or indeed that it contained made up quotes - I think that's pretty much expected with a breaking news story as details are filled in as they emerge - the problem is that it was posted, and not because an intern pressed SEND instead of SAVE, but because they weren't paying attention and wanted the scoop. They clearly intended to run the article had the outcome been accurate so the argument about making up quotes is still valid. Had they waited and replaced the information with actual things that had really happened and then posted it accidentally I don't think anyone would care too much...
If it had just been a case of the wrong boilerplate article being published, then fair enough. I can even just about accept the (inadvisable) practice of saving time by adding predictive clichés to a text in advance, which can then be "fine-tuned" in the light of what actually happens.

But I can't see any legitimate reason for concocting fake quotes in advance. Why not just put "INSERT QUOTE HERE" in the draft text? That would make it easier for the journalist to "fine-tune" everything correctly, rather than risk accidentally leaving in false information, and if submitted by mistake it would alert subeditors that they were dealing with a draft.

The most benign explanation I can think of is that Pisa "fine-tuned" his "not guilty" version, but then sent in his rough "guilty" draft by accident - in which case why is he "angry" with the Mail rather than with himself?

We all know that the only reason the article was pulled was because Knox was found not guilty - had it gone the other way, we would have been none the wiser that Pisa's report contained concocted quotes and bogus details. Pisa needs to come up with something rather better than "bloggers don't understand reporters".
1 reply · active 698 weeks ago
Yeah, Tim. If you knew *anything* about reporting you'd know reporting something that's happened is *completely* different to blogging something that's happened.

Or going to happen.

Or hasn't happened.
Not everything that appears under a byline is penned by that individual. I don't think it's entirely surprising that Pisa, a freelancer, doesn't wish to do any more than suggest you contact the Mail for comment - after all, you have published the email exchange.

If, as I suspect, the subs played merry hell with his holding copy, you've very publicly maligned a chap who relies on his reputation to earn his crust.

Another equally plausible explanation is that he submitted the piece with the intention of substituting pars in for the stuff that was invented.

Sending copy to the subs is NOT the same as publishing it.

The Mail is ridiculous and well-deserving of the criticism on this and other fuck ups. Still, neither you nor I know what happened here - ie whether or not Pisa is culpable - and in blaming him and him alone (or at least giving the impression that you believe it is his fault) you may have without any justification fucked him over.

By contrast, his point that you dont fully understand how newspapers work would seem to have a degree of validity.

I really don't understand why Pisa, and not The Mail, is the subject of your ire.
1 reply · active 698 weeks ago
Well done Tim. You anticipated his reaction accurately too.

It was Pisa who was co-inventor of the Foxy Knoxy moniker, that helped to stain her character.
Okay - published extracts from the email exchange. I think my point still stands. You might dislike the Mail but he relies in part on it for his income. Expecting him to have a public dig at them seems a bit of a stretch, particularly given the tone of the email you initially sent him.

I'd argue that by leaving this article on your site you are doing that which you are doing that which you've accused others of doing to you - namely, unfairly maligning another on the basis of circumstantial evidence and supposition, rather than hard fact.

I'm a big fan, Tim, but I think you're wide of the mark on this one. I'll reiterate, I really don't see why Pisa and not the Mail is your chosen target. The paper, unlike Pisa, is demonstrably in the wrong.
1 reply · active 698 weeks ago
"I wasn't the only one" is not in fact a defence. If it was, gang-bangs wouldn't be a crime. I know: extreme example. But he *is* showing extreme stupidity.
???

Come on, Tim. You do know, don't you, that every piece of copy you read in ANY newspaper will have been tinkered with by editor, news desk, subs etc. The idea that Pisa is somehow culpable because of this process is asinine. Expecting him to publicly malign one of his sources of income equally so.

This may be satire but bloggerheads.com doesn't exist in a vaccum. The headline alone "'journalist' Nick Pisa is itself pretty damaging given the prominence Google gives your blog. I'm sorry to keep banging on about it, but there is no evidence he wrote those quotes, let alone intended them to be published.

Given the shit you've unfairly had to deal with over the past couple of years I'm surprised you're playing the man and not the ball in this fashion. Even if Pisa submitted every single word of the copy (which I'll concede is entirely possible - on a big story like this hacks will routinely file a long piece with the intention of subbing in actual quotes and eye-witness detail to save time in the rush to publish) it's not the same as intending it to be published in that form.

Unlike blogging, print hacks dont stick their own material up - particularly when working in the field. Your piece conflates a number of issues and makes an unmerited value judgement about his abilities as a journalist.

The only thing we can all be definitive about is that the Mail fucked up. So why go so much further? Pisa may well have invented quotes etc but neither you nor I know that. Your blog gives quite a different impression.
2 replies · active 698 weeks ago
Pardon me while I have a quick word with a comment contributor who claims some familiarity with this site, but does not appear to understand that I do not publish comments from falsified email addresses. In fact, I've a tendency to think very little of people who question my objectivity while disguising their identity/interests, and people who do so 'innocently' should be warned that while their comments remain indistinguishable from those that clearly seek to deceive my readers and/or abuse my trust, they will be grouped accordingly and will probably never see the light of day.

[EDIT - I wish to be clear that I am not accusing anyone named in this thread of sock-puppeting. If I had evidence of that, I would put it directly/privately to that person via their real/main identity.]
Good on ye tim.

Niall, as my mother used to say, "fly with the crows, get shot with the crows". Everyone knows the daily mail is a joke so i.m.o choosing to work for them means you accept the consequences of their moronic actions.
1 reply · active 698 weeks ago
senornunes's avatar

senornunes · 698 weeks ago

Nick Pisa knows he has blundered badly on this one with the reaction/quote fabrications, and got caught out. And I suspect Foxy Knoxy gets an easy few quid out of this from AN.

But nevertheless I have some sympathy for him over the slagging he's getting today. 1) That 'dummy' piece should never have seen the light of day. 2) We don't yet know if the little 'guilty' story embellishments were done by him, or by the office. 3) He cannot be held responsible for whichever idiot pressed the button in Kensington.

When he says he is as angry as you are, I suspect that isn't true. He's probably much angrier.
Did he only get the Italian job because of his name?
That is priceless!
I think Niall needs considerably more support than he's getting here. Great that everyone presumes to know what happened between Nick Pisa filing and the story going live, and whether the embellisments, reprehensible as they were, were his or not. But I can't help feeling your initial facetious email to him, Tim, made you look particularly childish, and was hardly deserving of a mature response - which you seemed to get. I'd have told you to fuck off.
I'm beginning to sound like a broken record here, so will make this my final comment on the matter.

There is no evidence he wrote the falsified quotes and eyewitness material. Even if he did, there's no evidence he intended it to be published.

The fact is you invite your readers to conclude that he did both those things. That's shoddy journalism - ironically that which you accuse Pisa of.

Reporters do not publish, and will often file holding pieces not intended for publication in that form.

You are within your rights to say he shouldn't tolerate his employer's actions maligning his reputation. I'll conclude by saying these are tough times for freelancers and he might not be able to say all that he wants to, and that it might be an idea to give more prominence in the article to the possibility Pisa had nothing to do with the fuck up.

This whole blog takes Pisa's guilt as given. You leave yourself open to the charge that you must be awfully lonely all the way up there on that pedestal of yours.
4 replies · active 698 weeks ago
Surely if he wrote it he would have expected to have some quotes and so put some in so that the article would have been formatted correctly, then in the event of a guilty verdict he'd be able to get his story out faster. However, while he was finishing off the correct version (with real quotes) someone on the Daily Mail web team published the wrong story.

The error was therefore on the technical team's side.
1 reply · active 698 weeks ago
His name is on the piece. That's good enough for me. He'd be happy to take the credit if he had a scoop.
1 reply · active 698 weeks ago
I am astonished at the many journalists who appear to defend the Mail article, they used quotes regarding an event that did not occur, they embellished the 'made up' story with descriptions of the reactions of individuals to an event that did not occur, fact is the story was simply 'made up' as we the public have always believed. Thanks to the Mail for confirming what is according to many defenders 'standard practice' pre writing story's i.e making them up.

As for the often stated comment that we the public 'don't understand how it works' (very patronising) well actually we know EXACTLY how it works and thanks to the Mail we now have the proof. It also explains the culure inherent in some media fractions that ultimately led to 'Hackgate'

I make no comment on the Journalist who's name is attached to the article, save to say that if he is aware of 'unethical' practice in any media and goes along with it then he is as guilty as they are, if he has been maligned by their practice then he should say so and protect his and other journalists integrity before it is too late.
Just got another comment from someone using a false email address. This one sought to undermine the comment of another contributor by calling them an 'anonymous nobody'... and they did this while hiding their identity!

I realise they may do things differently over at the Daily Mail website, but while I have a policy of allowing anonymous comments within limits (you want me to bear the weight of an accusation? provide a verifiable email address!) I do not tolerate the use of sock puppets to attack the reputations of others.
Niall - the fact that he may or may not have been involved in what is nothing more than pure fabrication is irrelevant. It's his name on the article, he is the one who has to justify that article.

It actually does not surprise me in the slightest that the Daily Fail would allow something like this to happen, after all it has probably boosted their overall hits to the paper massively. I don't think they really care whether news is genuine or not, all they want is advertising revenue generated by page views. That's why they call it a viewspaper these days, the news is irrelevant.

I wonder if the PCC will take any action...I highly doubt it. False reporting should result in severe penalties, at least then the rags would be forced to actually check and proof-read their pieces before hitting "Publish".
Ire of Tunbridge's avatar

Ire of Tunbridge · 698 weeks ago

It is plausible too that the 'fabricated' quotes are actually genuine - it's not unusual for diary events like this to ask people what their reaction would be if A happened or B happened rather than chasing after them for reaction after the event

having an idea what your intro is going to be is also pretty standard practice and can be quickly fine tuned for accuracy later (as Nick kind of eludes to in his response)

As Niall says it's the Daily Fail's fuck up not Nick's and I see no reason why he should have to come on the internet and explain himself to a bunch of irate keyboard warriors for something that is not his error

Post a new comment

Comments by