当ABC新闻在周四未作解释地从其网站上删除了一篇关于特朗普儿子的报道时，一位匿名公司消息人士向媒体记者透露，该文章是“过早”发布的。撰写该原始报道的调查记者Nathan Lee在向Powerus和Anduril（即该报道核心主题的两家公司）发送的邮件中使用了相同的表述。
When ABC News removed a story about Donald Trump’s sons from its website without explanation on Thursday, an unnamed company source told media reporters the article had been published “prematurely.”Nathan Lee, the investigative reporter who wrote the original piece, used the same language in emails to Powerus and Anduril, two of the companies at the center of the piece.
但ABC新闻与其报道对象之间的邮件记录，经Semafor获取，显示该网络试图通过歪曲自身流程来淡化其错误。
But emails between ABC News and its subjects, provided to Semafor, show the network seeking to downplay its errors by misrepresenting its own processes.
10月7日，ABC新闻发表了一篇关于国防承包商Anduril与美国海军之间一项新增66亿美元交易的调查报道，该交易旨在在马里兰州建造一个新的高科技潜艇造船厂。该报道主要聚焦于特朗普总统之子与国防公司之间的财务关联，指出唐纳德·特朗普 Jr. 是投资公司1789 Capital的合伙人，该公司“在2025年6月通过向Anduril注资25亿美元而获得了该公司的主要股权”。
On Oct. 7, ABC News published an investigation into a new $6.6 billion deal between defense contractor Anduril and the US Navy to build a new high-tech submarine shipyard in Maryland. The piece largely focused on the financial ties between President Donald Trump’s son and defense companies, noting that Donald Trump Jr. is a partner at investment firm 1789 Capital, which “claimed a major stake in Anduril in June 2025 from a $2.5 billion investment into the company.”
报道发布后，Anduril的一位发言人联系了Lee，提出了若干紧急的更正请求。该公司——根据Anduril内部人士的说法，在报道发布前一直未回应ABC新闻的询问——希望该网络能够澄清Anduril与1789之间的关联，指出该公司在Anduril最新一轮融资中仅投资了5000万美元，仅占25亿美元总额的一小部分。
After the piece was published, a spokesperson for Anduril reached out to Lee with several urgent requests for correction. The company — which had not responded to ABC News’ inquiries prior to its publication, according to an Anduril source — wanted the network to clarify connections between Anduril and 1789, noting that the firm had invested $50 million in Anduril’s latest round, a small percentage of the $2.5 billion total.
“目前，1789仅持有Anduril约0.13%的股份，且不享有任何主要投资者权利。任何暗示1789为该轮融资提供资金，或在Anduril中持有重大所有权、治理地位或‘主要股权’的说法都是不准确的，”Anduril的发言人在给Lee的邮件中写道，据Semafor获取的邮件所示。
“Today, 1789 owns approximately 0.13% of Anduril and has no major investor rights. Any suggestion that 1789 financed the round or holds significant ownership, governance position or ‘major stake’ in Anduril is inaccurate,” Anduril’s spokesperson wrote to Lee, according to emails obtained by Semafor.
该报道在周三发布后，Lee告诉Anduril，该网络正在略微调整文章中的语言，但否则仍坚持其报道内容。
After the story was published on Wednesday, Lee told Anduril that the network was slightly tweaking the language in its piece, but it was otherwise standing by its story.
“我已与我的编辑沟通，我们已为准确性更新了报道，”李在一则便条中写道。“我们已从之前的报道中删除了‘主要股权’的表述。1789 Capital确实声称从贵公司获得的25亿美元投资中持有股权，因此我们在此范围内坚持我们的表述。”Anduril的公关团队对此不满意，并继续施压网络以澄清其报道，称该报道错误陈述了1789 Capital对Anduril融资轮的投资。
“I have spoken to my editors and we have updated the story for accuracy,” Lee said in a note. “We had pulled the ‘major stake’ language from previous reporting. 1789 Capital did claim a stake from the $2.5 billion investment your company received, so we are standing by our language to that extent.”Anduril’s PR team was not satisfied, and continued to press the network to clarify its story, saying that the piece misstated 1789 Capital’s investment in Anduril’s fundraising round.
“仍然不清楚。我读了你们的文本，感觉就像他们投资了全部的25亿美元。更准确的做法是列出他们实际的5000万美元投资，甚至更准确的是说明他们在Anduril的持股不到一个百分点，”一位发言人写道。
“It’s still not clear. I read your text and it reads as if they invested the full $2.5b. Would be much more accurate to list their actual investment of $50m and even more accurate to share that they own less than a percentage point in Anduril,” a spokesperson wrote.
周三下午晚些时候，李在另一封邮件中表示，ABC新闻的编辑已审阅了语言并坚持该报道。
In another email later Wednesday afternoon, Lee said ABC News’ editors had reviewed the language and were standing by the piece.
“抱歉，但我的编辑表示我们将坚持该语言。我会确保直接联系你们两位，以便就任何未来报道进行沟通，”李说。
“Apologies, but my editors said we are standing by the language. I’ll make sure to reach out to both of you directly for any future stories,” Lee said.
但到了星期四，网络改变了主意。该网络在没有解释的情况下删除了该报道，ABC新闻纽约的制作人彼得·查拉兰博斯联系了Anduril和Powerus——一家在报道中被提及的无人机承包商——称该报道是“提前发布并在我们的网站上被移除”。周五晚上，ABC新闻重新发布了由查兰博斯重新报道的新版故事，现在没有署名。编辑注中未包含最初报道是提前发布的语言。
But by Thursday, the network had changed its mind. The network removed the piece without explanation, and Peter Charalambous, an ABC News producer in New York, reached out to Anduril and Powerus, a drone contractor mentioned in the story, saying the story had been “published prematurely and removed from our website.”On Friday evening, ABC News republished a new version of the story re-reported by Charalambous, now without a byline. An editor’s note did not include language that the initial piece was published early.
编辑注：更正：本故事于10月7日发布的版本中，对某些公司投资、政府合同和事件时间线的描述存在错误。经过后续报道，此版本已包含更正后的信息，并就其中部分投资、合同和事件提供了额外背景。一位网络消息来源告诉Semafor：“我们始终以彻底和审慎的方式审查每种情况，目前不会提供进一步评论。”该来源还指出，ABC News撤下一篇新闻极为罕见。
“Editor’s Note: CORRECTION: A version of this story published on Oct. 7 contained errors in the description of certain company investments, government contracts and event chronologies. After subsequent reporting, this version contains corrected information and additional context regarding some of those investments, contracts and events.”A network source told Semafor: “We always review every situation in a thorough and thoughtful manner and will not be providing further comment at this time.”The source also noted that it was extremely rare for ABC News to remove a story.
Status报道称，该文章在发布当天的网络常规上午9点编辑会议上被提及，“表明至少部分员工知晓其发布情况”，并且它“通过其常规邮件分发渠道传播，未引起任何即时警报。”ABC News暗示其初版故事发布过早的说法，对任何曾处理危机公关的人来说都很熟悉——这是一种常见的辩解，旨在淡化公司错误，使情况看似意外。
Status reported Sunday that the article was mentioned during the network’s regular 9 am editorial call the day it was published, “suggesting at least some staffers were aware of its publication,” and it “circulated it through its usual email distribution without raising any immediate alarms.”ABC News’ suggestion that its initial story was published prematurely is familiar spin to anyone who has dealt with crisis PR. It minimized the company’s mistakes and made the situation seem like an accident.
但在新闻媒体信任度持续下降的当下，此类推卸责任的行为可能损害主流、非 partisan美国新闻的可信度。值得注意的是，该网络在其官方回应中似乎意识到了其中的差别，承认原文确实存在错误。
But at a time when distrust in the news media continues to rise, deflections like this can damage the credibility of mainstream, nonpartisan American journalism. Tellingly, the network seemed to know the difference in its official response, acknowledging that the original piece contained errors.
Brett Velicovich，Powerus的联合创始人——另一家被ABC News初版报道提及的公司——抱怨称，该网络对此事的处理方式加深了他对媒体对其公司及总统政府报道的不满。
Brett Velicovich, co-founder of Powerus, another company mentioned in ABC News’ initial piece, complained that the network’s handling of the story reinforced his frustration with much of the media coverage of his company and the president’s administration.
“它正在破坏新闻报道的核心意义，”维利科维奇说。“损害已经造成。”特朗普家族将商业与治理混为一谈，在近期历史上前所未有，这成为记者们重要的报道目标，因为他们试图理解公司和国家如何通过投资特朗普企业或让特朗普家族成为合作伙伴来影响政策。但ABC新闻在未作解释的情况下删除其报道，同时误导性地暗示该报道只是意外发布，这为特朗普之子及右翼人士提供了另一个批评主流新闻媒体的机会。
“It’s destroying the integrity of what reporting is all about,” Velicovich said. “The damage is already done.”The Trump family’s mix of business and governing, unprecedented in recent history, is an important reporting target, as journalists attempt to understand how companies and countries are attempting to influence policy by investing in Trump businesses or bringing the Trumps on as partners themselves. But ABC News’ decision to remove its story without explanation while misleadingly telegraphing that it was simply published on accident gave the president’s son and many on the right another opening to criticize mainstream news outlets.
如果越来越多的人继续相信新闻机构愿意误导或未能对错误承担全部责任，那么当媒体拥有合法报道时，他们还会倾听吗？
If more and more people continue to believe that news organizations are willing to mislead or fail to take full accountability for mistakes, will they listen when outlets have legitimate stories?
去掉数字，这个故事的最基本版本——五角大楼正向一家特朗普之子有投资的防务承包商支付巨额款项，而该承包商的联合创始人帕默尔·拉基是特朗普的高额捐款人——是正确的。这也符合国会民主党人承诺在中期选举后若重新掌权将进行调查的模式。
Remove the numbers, and the most basic version of the story — the Pentagon is paying very large sums to a defense contractor in which the president’s sons have invested, and whose co-founder, Palmer Luckey, is a high-dollar Trump donor — is correct. It also follows a pattern congressional Democrats have promised to investigate should they retake power after the midterms.