Frank Sennett's Version of Events

Frank Sennett, editor of Slipup.com and former managing editor of the Chicago alternative weekly NewCity:

'I guess the idea [for Slipup.com] occurred to me when I was reporting a media story about the Chicago Tribune, where they inadvertently created a child for serial killer Andrew Cunanan out of thin air. The Trib ran a correction, but there was no information about how this slipup happened, even though it made its way into the national press.

'In trying to discover what happened, I interviewed all of the reporters on the story but one. When I tried to interview the last guy on the list, I discovered that his editor George Papajohn ... had ordered the guy not to speak to me. Papajohn persisted in his cover-up even after I allowed him to go off the record to tell me why he was protecting his reporter -- with the agreement that he would then pave the way for me to interview the guy. But when I subsequently spoke with the reporter, he said that Papajohn again ordered him not to speak to me.

'So a top editor at a major U.S. paper was so bent on covering up the truth behind one of the paper's major screw-ups that he broke his word to a fellow journalist. That was the day I really started thinking about how, if journalists ever expect regular folks to trust them and agree to be story sources, they need to come clean about their mistakes and make every effort to explain them and air them out in the open. The Slipup idea grew from there.'

???... Back to Main Story

? The Chicago Tribune Responds

George Papajohn, former deputy metro editor of the Chicago Tribune:

'Frank Sennett and I disagree on a couple of things. The first is the definition of a cover-up. I fail to see any Nixon-ian obfuscation in the Tribune revealing to the world its own slipup in our Cunanan coverage.

'We also disagree on the necessity of me, in my role as an editor, describing for him every detail of how an error occurred. I tried to give him a general description of what happened in the Cunanan case: Two reporters were told about the child, but they did not realize they got the information from the same source and thus felt they had confirmed the detail when it was far from confirmed (and in fact was erroneous). In other words, a lack of communication on deadline and a lack of skepticism and precise editing by me and my rewrite person contributed to this error.

'However, Mr. Sennett wanted more. Specifically, what each reporter did on this story (there were several reporters on the byline and credit line). I didn't see the need for this and, again, provided an explanation. Readers, I believe, should know when we make a mistake and, in certain instances, how we made it.

'But do we need to name names? I don't think so. As an editor I take responsibility for errors in my stories, and I had no problem being quoted -- and ridiculed -- in the NewCity column. But how can I expect reporters to come to me and confess their own errors when they think I'm going to expose them to potential ridicule in the media column of a weekly paper that rarely has anything nice to say about the Tribune? I need to foster an atmosphere of trust with my staff. They rightly expect that some interactions with their editors will remain internal.

'Finally, getting back to the wild notion of a cover-up, I did tell one reporter not to speak to Mr. Sennett but only until I had spoken to Mr. Sennett first. I had tracked down how the error occurred and wanted to make sure that Mr. Sennett had my side of the story. After my conversation with Mr. Sennett, I told this reporter -- as I tell all reporters -- that it's up to him to decide if he wants to be interviewed.'