Did a Star Tribune reporter tweet the woman's name in Best Buy’s Dunn investigation?
Tom Lee
The Star Tribune’s Tom Lee scored a mammoth scoop Tuesday with news that Best Buy CEO Brian Dunn’s resignation came amid a company investigation into alleged personal misconduct, which Lee today reported was an alleged "inappropriate relationship with a female employee."
Wednesday night, Lee published a scoop he seems to have regretted.
Via the social networking site Twitter, Lee sent two messages to an account belonging to Brian Dunn. I’ve redacted them for reasons I’ll explain in a sec:
“@briandunn Brian, I’m a reporter for the Star Tribune. I’m writing a story that says BBY board is investigating you for XX XXXXXXX XXXXX…”
“@briandunn BBY employee XXXX XXXX. Is this true? Contact me at Thomas.lee@startribune.com or 612-202-2307.”
Twitter allows people to send each other private, direct messages, or DMs, but Lee’s were public. That put the woman’s name out in the wild, where competitors and curious citizens – including the one who tipped me off – could read what the newspaper was not confident enough to print in its Thursday front-page follow-up.
Lee’s tweets were a mistake because there needs to be some standard of proof (and subsequently, judgment) before someone’s name is put out in public.
More than an hour later, the messages were deleted.
What happened? I can’t be completely sure because as of 10 a.m., Lee had not responded to my DM and business editor Todd Stone and managing editor Rene Sanchez haven’t answered my email, nor were they available by phone.
In his story today, Lee writes, “Dunn … has not responded to phone calls and other efforts to reach him for comment.”
It’s possible Lee thought he was sending Dunn a direct message. However, only people who follow each other can send DMs; a check of the 1,422 people Dunn follows does not include Lee, though it’s possible the ex-CEO “unfollowed” the reporter between Wednesday night and my Thursday morning check. Also, Lee sent two messages, meaning he had to make the same mistake twice.
Lee is a net-savvy guy, having interrupted his Strib tenure to be an aggressive blogger for online-only Med City News.
Then again, net-savvy guys can make mistakes. I know.
Shocked that Lee had tweeted out the name and anxious to point out the breach, I retweeted his second tweet. I immediately regretted it, since I was compounding his error and “undid” the retweet within seconds. So did one other Twitterer who saw what I saw.
Though some people certainly saw what the three of us posted, it appears, for the moment, that Lee and I successfully unrung the bell. A Twitter search for the woman’s name at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday turns up no references, nor did a Google News search.
The escapade is a reminder that social networking – while a wonderful tool – still needs to serve, not undermine, ethical reporting. It’s also a reminder to compulsives to think before they shoot.
Related Content:
Related Tags:
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
30 comments
-
27 comments
-
27 comments
-
26 comments
-
23 comments
Comments (7)
call me old fashioned
but why would you ever DM and risk pulling this sort of goof (it sank the career of anthony weiner) when you can email? Has email been relegated, like voicemail, to a second rate status as the new dead letter box, a holding pen for spam and messages from people who are So 2010?
Madame X
A reader can't know whether it was a breach of ethics -- or not -- for Lee to Tweet the name of the woman involved in the Best Buy story unless -- and until -- we know whether Dunn's "inappropriate" conduct with the woman was consensual or not. If it is alleged to be consensual, like the Gal Pal who fell off the Arkansas football coach's motorcycle, then let's have it: Her name is fair game. If, on the other hand, it is alleged that she was preyed upon by her Best Buy boss, then she is a victim, and her name is off limits. The problem, at this point, is that we have a scandal that we don't know enough about to know whether it is a real scandal. Or just a workplace soap opera.
C'mon Nick...
....that's the whole point! Lee was seeking confirmation. At that point in time, no one knew what the "arrangement" was. It's not just that he released the name, it's WHEN he did it. At of the time of the Tweets, it was clearly a breach of ethics.
Missing the obvioius
@Paul Scott
Lee didn't DM Brian Dunn, and that's the problem; it made his tweet public to any of his followers, or anyone looking at his Twitter page. DMs are private; tweets are public, unless you have no followers or deliberately limit your followers to ones you approve.
Since Dunn is no longer with the company, his email address there has been frozen or deactivated, so he can't access any emails there anyway. Given the ongoing investigation, the audit committee is probably examining every email he may have sent to this staffer regarding this alleged inappropriate relationship.
Unless Lee knows the personal email address of Brian Dunn, he can't send him email. That still doesn't excuse the lack of thinking on his part when he tweeted the name of this person.
Consent?
Such a relationship may be a violation whether it's consensual or not.
Madame XX
I'm not exonerating Lee or the Strib...quite to the contrary, I'm agreeing with Brauer that the issue is of concern...with the added point, however, that the damage caused by Lee's premature Tweeting can't be determined until we know MORE about the alleged "inappropriate" relationship... All I'm saying is that it's too early to get your underwear in a knot. And, yes, "consensual" relationships may be inappropriate, but if they ate between consenting adults, they are only inappropriate...not illegal...
What's the "old-school" standard?
Looks like the original "bell" has been re-rung via Gizmodo. But I'm curious though what would the actual standard be within "old school" media for a non-tabloid newspaper or tv news dept to name an individual involved with this kind of issue. It's not like crimes involving a minor so is it enough to go on undisclosed sources or is it waiting for full blown investigation documents that spell out that person's name?
Also find it pretty fascinating how Twitter has become this public un-vetted version of an AP wire. It's definitely proven an ability to break news but I wonder what expectation people have of its accuracy. I suppose just like old school journalism it depends on the source.