The story said that the Senate Intelligence Committee was examining the fund and that Mr. Scaramucci had met with the head of the fund, Kirill Dmitriev, several days before Mr. Trump’s inauguration. It also said the Treasury Department had been looking into the meeting at the request of two Democratic senators, who had expressed concern that Mr. Scaramucci might have promised to help get sanctions against Russia waived by the new administration.
The story was written by Thomas Frank, who had been a Pulitzer Prize finalist at USA Today. But Mr. Scaramucci, who was jockeying for a position in the White House, disputed the information when CNN contacted him for comment, according to a person close to Mr. Scaramucci; the story quoted Mr. Scaramucci as saying “there is nothing there,” in reference to his meeting with Mr. Dmitriev.
Mr. Lichtblau was editing the article and, according to the people with direct knowledge of the events, he sent a draft of the story to Lex Haris, the head of the investigative unit. Mr. Haris, who was traveling to Phoenix for a conference, signed off — as long as the story passed muster with CNN’s internal review system, known as the Triad.
The Triad includes CNN’s fact-checkers and its standards team, both of which approved the article. But the third prong, the legal department, had at least one question that went unanswered.
It is not clear what specific concerns the legal department raised, or why Mr. Lichtblau and Mr. Haris did not address them; journalists at CNN said it was sometimes difficult to keep track of the flurry of inquiries that could come during the review process. (Mr. Frank, Mr. Haris and Mr. Lichtblau declined to comment for this story.)
Mr. Lichtblau moved forward with publication. He emailed an editor affiliated with KFile, Kyle Blaine, who had not been involved in the story, and instructed him to publish it on his behalf.
When the story was posted that afternoon, it received little attention — inside the newsroom and out. But Mr. Scaramucci and his representatives quickly contacted CNN officials, including the network’s Washington bureau chief, Sam Feist, to complain. It was an “all hands on deck’’ rebuttal, said the person familiar with Mr. Scaramucci’s response.
Breitbart News, a frequent critic of CNN, soon posted an item that questioned CNN’s reporting, and called the network’s story “very fake news.’’ Citing its own source, Breitbart said there was no Senate investigation.
When CNN managers began to review the piece, they discovered the legal department’s concerns — and that they had not been addressed. They also realized a factual error had slipped through the fact-checking process; it was a technicality related to a Russian bank’s relationship to the fund, but managers found it to have been a troubling lapse.
And there was a more problematic issue, two people familiar with the review said.
Mr. Frank’s single source had wavered before the story was published, expressing concern about how the information was being presented. But Mr. Frank had not relayed that hesitancy to his colleagues.
Between Mr. Frank’s wavering source and the discovery of breakdowns in the editorial vetting process, executives concluded that the network could not stand behind the story. The day after the article was published, CNN removed it from its website and issued a formal retraction and an apology to Mr. Scaramucci.
“That story did not meet CNN’s editorial standards,” the network wrote.
Still, it is unclear to what degree the story was inaccurate. CNN has never said that the article’s reporting was incorrect, and Mr. Zucker made clear on a morning conference call, soon after the retraction, that the network would not go back and report the story again.
Some journalists inside and outside the network said privately that they believed the story was materially true. But the story also suffered from a lack of clarity. A reader could easily come away with the impression that Mr. Scaramucci himself was under investigation for some kind of illicit dealings with the Russians — an assertion that the article does not explicitly make.
The fallout came quickly. The day after the retraction, Rich Barbieri, the editor of CNN’s business and finance site, sent his team an email barring the publication of “any content involving Russia” without editorial approval — “no exceptions.”
As Breitbart News and other CNN critics gloated over the retraction, Mr. Zucker decided that stern action was necessary to demonstrate to its employees — and to the outside world — that the network would not tolerate such mistakes. The network asked Mr. Lichtblau, Mr. Haris and Mr. Frank to resign.
The episode shocked many inside CNN and created anxiety in the newsroom. Some staff members said they thought the punishment had been overly harsh, a view expressed by some media commentators as well.
Though corrections are not uncommon for news organizations, full retractions are more unusual and typically signify major factual errors or ethical breaches. When news organizations do retract a story, they normally also make an effort to correct the record, and explain to the reader what went wrong. But the brief editor’s note from CNN, some journalism experts said, provided more questions than answers.
“CNN failed in its duty to enlighten the public,” said Edward Wasserman, the dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. “Instead, it muddied the waters to correct something and we don’t know what it’s correcting.”
Mr. Trump quickly seized on the resignations. He posted on Twitter the next morning, “Wow, CNN had to retract big story on ‘Russia,’ with 3 employees forced to resign. What about all the other phony stories they do? FAKE NEWS!’’
At CNN, executives took some time to regroup. Mr. Zucker vowed that the network would not be cowed by the Trump administration. After a reassessment period, CNN asked the investigative unit to resume its work. Its ranks have been replenished: new journalists have been brought on from other parts of CNN, and there is a new team leader in place, Matt Lait, a veteran former editor at The Los Angeles Times.
On Aug. 2, weeks after he informed the investigative team of the resignations, Mr. Burke, the CNN executive, convened another meeting — this time to outline the unit’s refocused mission. The team would engage in longer-term reporting on national issues, with less focus on the White House. He affirmed that the unit should leave the Russia investigation story to CNN’s staff in Washington.
Mr. Scaramucci, meanwhile, had been named Mr. Trump’s communications director. His successful tangling with CNN was said to have greatly pleased the president. Before Mr. Scaramucci was himself forced out of the White House, he was overheard on a live television microphone referring to the retracted story and Mr. Zucker.
“He helped me get the job by hitting those guys,” Mr. Scaramucci said, referring to the resignations. He added, “Tell him he’s not getting a placement fee for getting me the job.”
Continue reading the main story