I'm sorry, but the marketplace slip up seems pretty inexcusable.
I could see if the guy had maybe not earned some medals he claimed he had, or if he was lower rank than he claimed, but he claimed to be a returning veteran and was never even in the army.
Maybe it's just me, but verifying his army background and veteran status would be the first thing I would check going with a story titled, "Returning veteran has few marketable skills"
Admitting they were wrong is nice, but that's a pretty big wrong that was easily avoidable by doing even a little checking.
Marketplace purchased the story from another non-profit producer (http://www.mylifeistrue.org/). They assumed the original journalists had done the basic due diligence, so blaming marketplace for failing the obvious background checks is a bit unfair. They took accountability for someone else's mistake.
That doesn't cut it for me. Media organizations ought to be doing their own reporting, and where they don't they need to be going with reputable organizations with standards and procedures in place to keep this kind of thing from happening.
I could see if the guy had maybe not earned some medals he claimed he had, or if he was lower rank than he claimed, but he claimed to be a returning veteran and was never even in the army.
Maybe it's just me, but verifying his army background and veteran status would be the first thing I would check going with a story titled, "Returning veteran has few marketable skills"
Admitting they were wrong is nice, but that's a pretty big wrong that was easily avoidable by doing even a little checking.