Alaska Senate Race: Why the New York Times Kept a Source’s Words After She Tried to Retract Them

(PHOTO: LA TIMES)

A political investigation can become controversial not only because of what it reveals, but also because of how reporters obtain and verify the information. That question has come into focus after a New York Times report on the Alaska Senate race, where two candidates named Dan Sullivan appear on the ballot: Republican Senator Dan S. Sullivan and independent candidate Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg.

The Times reported, based on interviews with a dozen sources as well as text messages and documents, that aides to Democratic candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee helped recruit Dan J. Sullivan, a move that could confuse voters. Peltola’s campaign says it has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign, and the committee also denies involvement. Dan J. Sullivan says he entered the race of his own accord, and the Times did not report any evidence that he was coerced.

A Source Tries to Take Back Her Words

One of the Times’ key sources was Elisa Rios, Peltola’s former campaign manager, who was fired in August. She told the paper that Peltola was “definitely aware” of the effort but not directly involved. Last week, Rios emailed the Times saying she had retracted all statements about the race, but the newspaper published its report anyway.

Can a source take back what they said on the record? In this case, the Times said Rios had spoken on the record in several interviews and had not agreed to remove her comments, and reporter Kellen Browning described her as an important source who “went on the record”. The paper also said her account was supported by other sources, messages and documents. Her former employer has not confirmed her version, and the allegations remain unproven.

The Political Fallout

President Donald Trump called for Peltola and Dan J. Sullivan to be prosecuted and described the matter as election fraud. Alaska’s governor, Mike Dunleavy, ordered an investigation, and the Justice Department has issued dozens of subpoenas. Peltola denies knowing about any such effort, and her campaign points to Republicans it says have also backed “spoiler” candidates. NBC has reported that recruiting a candidate does not necessarily break the law.

The case shows that publishing a source’s account is not the same as accepting it without question. Verification, corroboration and the chance for those named to respond all matter, especially when a report could influence a closely contested election, and news organisations are judged on whether their own reporting can withstand scrutiny.