Read on Twitter
THREAD - I wanted to provide an update on this story we published yesterday and responses some have used to question the accuracy of the article https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/gov-stitt-complained-to-hospital-leaders-about-interviews-with-media-on-covid-19-crisis/
A local news station did a spot on this article and I was happy to speak with them about it. But before their piece ran I was told Mercy Hospital was now disputing a key fact in the story. I hadn't heard from Mercy since the story ran so I called to see what was up ...
Mercy told me they were in fact disputing the report that the governor called their top executive. It wasn't a correction they were seeking, they simply denied the call happened in a statement to the news station, which did its job in seeking comment. ...
While just one part of the story, it's a pretty important part. I don't want any element to be wrong and I was puzzled why the hospital would deny it post publishing but not say anything to me. If I were them I would have been the first call they made. ...
As I do if anyone disputes my reporting I circled back w/ all my sources. These are sources I spoke to multiple times before publishing, including calling them back to go over the details I plan to report to make sure they stand by it and they know what I plan to write. ...
After calling my sources after the article published each one confirmed their original statements. I wasn't worried about the accuracy of the reporting. It remained solid. But I was still puzzled the hospital would dispute the call took place ...
This is real insider baseball, but when I called Mercy for comment I asked specifically about the call. More than that, I read this part of the story to them over the phone ...
I don't share stories with people before they publish, but I also follow a rule of never surprising anyone about what I write. I regularly read parts of my story to people/organizations so they know not only what I plan to write about, but also how I plan to write it. ...
Here is the entire statement I receive from Mercy. It didn't mention the phone call, which I was solid in my sourcing of. I actually took the statement as a standard response without really wading into the controversy (pretty typical stuff)
After I was told Mercy was disputing the call when contacted by a news station I asked Mercy to send me their new statement. Which is this: (BTW, Mercy was very responsive)
It was the same exact statement with one more line disputing the phone call. Mercy wasn't asking for a correction and I don't think they would have told me they were disputing the call unless I asked. ...
But because this has been reported (rightly so) by some other outlets I think the backstory is important. If Mercy would have originally denied the call took place I would circle back with my sources but still published the story. However, I would have included their denial.
This is not a gripe session at Mercy. I'm puzzled but they have their own needs, objectives and goals. You do you. I actually don't like anonymous sources, I feel uncomfortable, which is why I probably work 10x harder to fact check a story with anonymous sources.
I believe 100% in the premise of my story, but also 100% in the facts I reported. I just find it odd that a pretty major fact is in dispute but not really being raised. I guess I'm the one giving it attention. The gov speaks to the press today, so maybe I'll get my wish 
.
.
I'm not above mistakes and accuracy is my religion. If something is proven to be wrong in a story I'm the first to want to correct it, find out what the problem was and punish myself with a week of sleepless nights. I slept pretty good last night.
