The Guardian is taking down 13 articles and excerpts from others after a freelance writer couldn’t provide evidence for the material.
The writer, however, has defended his work, saying he simply lost his notes from earlier stories:
The claim that I fabricated stories is wrong.
Yesterday, the UK newspaper released a statement from editor Lee Glendinning entitled “A note to our readers about a reporter who breached our trust.” After sources in a February story said they’d never spoken to Joseph Mayton, a freelancer based in San Francisco, the paper launched an investigation:
When Mayton was unable to provide convincing evidence that the interviews in question in the February article had taken place, we hired an independent fact-checker to investigate all of his prior work, which comprised of 37 single-byline articles published between 2015 and 2016, seven shared byline stories from the same period, and 20 opinion pieces written from 2009 to 2015.
In an investigation that included approximately 50 interviews, our fact-checker found articles that contained likely or confirmed fabrication, including stories about two events that organizers said he didn’t attend. Dozens of sources could not be found – either they had no online presence or they were anonymous and could not be substantiated – and several people quoted in Mayton’s articles either denied speaking with him or giving the quotes attributed to them.
Mayton began writing opinion articles for the paper in 2009 while he was based in Egypt, then contributed news stories in 2015, once he relocated to California.
One story from September, 2015 about California residents who were criticizing the Red Cross for its response to local wildfires, now contains a footnote:
This article was amended on 26 May 2016 as a result of a fact-checking investigation. Quotes that could not be verified have been removed. The article was also corrected to amend the spelling of Viri Agapoff’s surname, and to remove an incorrect statement that shelters in Calistoga and Kelseyville were at full capacity.
Glendinning said the publication gave Mayton ample time to clear his name:
Our editors met with Mayton twice in person and emailed him dozens of times, giving him more than a month from the time the first allegations were presented to him to provide notes, phone records, contact information and other evidence. All evidence he provided has been taken into account, but he was unable or unwilling to provide information on most sources.
She added that the paper is now reviewing its policy on freelance writers, as well as the use of anonymous sources in stories:
…we need to take a closer look at occasions where individuals are not named in a story for no strong reason. We need to question the use of anonymous sourcing in any story; a policy we hold, but have not enforced strictly enough. There are occasions where it is of course necessary, such as in sensitive national security reporting, but these stories were not among them.
Mayton released a statement contradicting the Guardian’s accusations:
The Guardian says that they found articles that “contained likely or confirmed fabrication, including stories about two events that organizers said he didn’t attend.” I know of one specific event that I attended and to tell me I wasn’t there is not only wrong, but insulting. Their article also says that “several people quoted in Mayton’s articles either denied speaking with him or giving the quotes attributed to them.” I have given evidence, including the phone record requested by Guardian editors and emails, from sources who claimed I did not speak to them.
A number of interviews I conducted occurred in public at protests or on the street. My notes are gone as I did not keep them or they have been lost, which sadly, included the interviews and contact information. Obviously, that was my mistake and my responsibility. If the Guardian had asked for those earlier or requested more information when articles went live (or before), I could have provided it easily, as I have always worked with editors and any request, including contact information and sources’ full names as they were given to me.
He also claimed that sources have recanted what they told him, making it look like he’d fabricated quotes:
Freelancers are sometimes expendable. If a top company with weight claims something, a freelancer better have all details required. I have given all the available evidence that I can now give to the Guardian, but the sources appear to have gone back on what they said to me. I wish I had taken audio recordings of all interviews as this would have solved all of this. A life lesson I am now learning. Sometimes, sources go back on their statements and the only way to prove what they said is with an audio recording, which I failed to do, and because the freelancer only has their word, they are the ones who will be scapegoated, as I feel this is the case here. I should have recorded the interview, which I did on other occasions. I take responsibility for that.
I admit that I did not do a solid job of keeping records older than a few months and that is my mistake and I am responsible for it. I, like everyone else in our profession, has made mistakes. But that is different than accusing someone of fabricating stories that took days to complete. But I am confident that I never did. I understand that in today’s world, attacking reporters over their work is commonplace, but I never lied or fabricated sources in any story with the Guardian and to be accused of this is wrong and an attack on freelancers who struggle daily for a story, often going and talking to people on the ground that staffers are not doing.
Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our new daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.
Mayton’s statement is somewhat self-serving. “I understand that in today’s world, attacking reporters over their work is commonplace, but I never lied or fabricated sources in any story with the Guardian and to be accused of this is wrong and an attack on freelancers who struggle daily for a story, often going and talking to people on the ground that staffers are not doing.”
This story is about him, not about journalism.
As a freelancer, he is in the position of the sole investigator, so no graduate student or postdoc to blame, leaving just the dog, who obviously is a bit of a termite and likes to eat paper/homework. Mind you, there does seem to be a bit of an infestation of note/lab book eating organisms about these days. In my view, they are likely part of the microbiome of the gremlins who are so apt at destroying data that others wish to peruse.
His denial contains a tacit admission. He is accused of not attending two events the organizers said he did not attend: “I know of one specific event that I attended and to tell me I wasn’t there is not only wrong, but insulting.”