Amen to all, Dick. I would also remind my colleagues that when a source is granted anonymity and demonstrably lies, she or he has violated the anonymity-for-truth contract and should be called out by name in public. Some DC reporters who rely heavily on unnamed sources would get nervous about this, but it’s part of the job.
Agreed. And when spokespersons refuse to be identified, media ought to say that. “A spokesperson who refused to be identified denied the truth of the allegations, bit did not offer any evidence that the allegations were false.”
And yes, ban people from TV when they openly lie — just as we ban people from planes when they cause trouble flying. Trump calls it “positive thinking” when he pretends reality isn’t reality, but it’s time to refuse to accept his counterfeit truth, just as we’d refuse to accept counterfeit money.
Yes, Fox and other cable TV channels will ban non-Trumpers when they don’t repeat “Trump truth,” but that will be an open acknowledgment that we live in different universes. And good luck to FEMA as people begin to realize where the truth lies . . .
Reform needs to begin with embracing diversity of thought in newsrooms and editorial boards, bias is inevitable when everyone in the news chain processes information in a similar manner. Highlighting inconsistencies between data and statements by public figures is part of good journalism, but it needs to be consistently applied independent of the speakers political affiliation. At the same time be mindful that hyperbole & exaggeration have been part of human discourse since forever (if you don’t believe it, go read the graffiti on the walls in Pompey), you need to consider speaking style & intent (diversity of thought helps here) before labeling a statement a “lie”. And over the past decade “journalists” in the course of covering topics such as “Russian collusion”, “mostly peaceful demonstrations” the Hunter Biden laptop and “sharp as a tack Joe” have wittingly or unwittingly peddled a large pile of excrement to the public. Journalists need to own up to this, it’s going to take decades of exemplary journalism to dig yourselves out of the credibility hole you have dug. And redemption starts with embracing diversity of thought.
Easy to get caught up in this stuff. My understanding is Paul Manafort was convicted of a variety of offenses related to his involvement with Ukraine and not disclosing the income received on his tax returns. These offenses predated the 2016 campaign, and once Paul’s entanglement with Ukraine became known he was removed from the campaign. It is unclear to me how many of the 18 counts that were ultimately brought against Paul would have been filed had the Crossfire Hurricane investigation not been launched. The 18 counts and possible life sentence that comes with them are a powerful tool for a prosecutor to use to gain cooperation from a potential witness. At any rate, the charges were unrelated to Russian collusion, and it’s sloppy journalism to use convictions such as Paul’s to support the collusion narrative.
Michael Flynn is a more serious matter. Flynn had differed with Obama on U.S. relations with the Muslim world, and Obama ultimately removed him from his position, which was Obama’s prerogative. I mention this as it is evidence of animas between Obama and Flynn. Following Flynn being named nations security ambassador by the incoming Trump administration Flynn had conversations with the Russian ambassador over an upcoming vote in the UN and Russia not escalating matters following the Obama administration expelling a number of Russian personnel. These conversations were recorded by our intelligence agencies, and Flynn was subsequently asked to sit for an interview with the FBI as it appeared that some of Flynn’s statements to the Trump team on these discussions were not truthful. Prior to the interview, one of the FBI agents asked “what is our goal, truth/admission or guilt or to get him to lie so he can be prosecuted or fired”. Flynn was not Mirandized nor did he have counsel present. The interview was a perjury trap, normally when one is questioned about a conversation or document the material is placed in front of you, you are asked to read it, then explain whatever point it is the investigator is interested in (I have been there in a very different context). Flynn’s response didn’t match the transcript of the call, and thus it was claimed Flynn was lying. It is interesting to note that agent Pientka’s form 302 summarizing the interview didn’t indicate that Flynn was being untruthful, however Pientka’s 302 was subsequently edited heavily by Peter Strzok to carry the desired message, this editing was against policy. But again, while Flynn was caught up in the Meuller investigation, the events of interest happened after the election, and had no bearing on possible Russian interference in the 2016 election, to imply otherwise is poor journalism.
Guilty pleas themselves need to be taken with a grain of salt in federal cases. In both of these cases individual defendants with limited means are fighting the unlimited resources of the federal government. The government can and does delay proceedings, delay discovery and withhold evidence. At some point the $$ run out and the defendant is faced with being poorly represented by a public defender and being convicted on all counts or cutting a deal with the prosecution. There is a reason that something like 97% of federal cases settle and never go to trial. If justice is served when 15 charges drop down to 1-2, then why were the 15 charges brought in the first place? When these cases settle the governments case & conduct is never tested in a court of law, which further emboldens prosecutors to charge more aggressively. This needs a lot of attention from journalists.
Sorry, but this feels like a pretty extended rationalization of criminal conduct. Trump fired Flynn for lying, and he had no business at that point talking to the Russian ambassador. Also, you ignore the proven efforts by Russia to influence the campaign, as well as the roles of Roger Stone and Wikileaks. Let me note that most of the Steele dossier does not seem to have held up under scrutiny; hope you could similarly concede the problems that do remain.
The REAL real issue, IMO, is Mueller's timidity on matters that were justiciable. That timidity includes him — and other special prosecutors — giving undue weight to that early 1970s opinion (which is all it is, a legal opinion) from the Office of Legal Counsel within DOJ that sitting presidents can't be indicted.
Balderdash, and nugatory, to use another legal term. It ignored — and all special prosecutors who have cited it have reinforced the ignorance — that impeachment is a civil process and a civil process ONLY.
Of course, with John Marshall Roberts since this time giving Trump 3/4 of a get out of jail free card ...
I agree with Steve's analysis. Newsrooms and news organizations would better serve the public trust if they would strive to explain the various sides, rationales, and interpretations of the events and people they cover. To me, this is of far greater import than encouraging reporters to call out liars, when their own bias can color what they perceive as an outright "yes, this person 100% knew it" lie. It also invites status-seeking through virtue signaling.
Reporters would better serve their readers if they would also stop granting anonymity so freely, which allows sources to shape stories (in no small part because the reporter is sympathetic to their politics). "Sources say..." is part of the journalist's lexicon. They cultivate resources within government, and they mutually benefit from having a story to file and a narrative to promote.
You talk about it being infuriating that Kristi Noem talked about one thing when she should have been doing another. I would argue that you probably describe the majority of the way journalists perceive their jobs: not to inform as much as to adjudicate. But that's about values, not strictly "here are the facts" reportage.
And this presentation of the liberal and progressive views as entirely normative is why journalism, as currently practiced, deserves to be held in low regard. It's not currently, as I was taught in J-school, giving people the information they need to govern themselves (though, to be fair, they may think they're doing that), but presenting a narrowly tailored version of news items, infused with one's own values, in order to guide readers to the "correct" view.
This is the way most mainstream news operations function, especially NPR. It gives most of the weight to the arguments that support liberal views of the role of government, of cultural issues, and that oppose Trump and Republican and conservative opinions, values, and actions.
I don't want an All Things Considered reporter emoting "What does this mean for the CPB?" or Scott Horsley giving me his curated version of why Trump's tariffs are flawed and we hear little to nothing of an opposing set of rationales.
That's the NPR way: so many stories are presented through this gatekeeping filter of what they think matters. Fair enough, but maybe get some more open-minded people to do that work. Which I see as a main point of Uri Berliner's article.
As we saw from the fallout of the Biden debate/dropout kerfuffle, this narrow view of what matters is reinforced by the attendant concern that if you give your audience a wide array of information and perspectives, they could choose "wrong."
Well, that's part of living in a free democratic society. I'd rather newsrooms address these fundamental issues of bias and tribalist "our side is the best side" than make it a practice to punish sources for lying to them.
I agree - the only thing we can do is have a certain truth 'discipline', which maybe over time shifts the course. I'm biased but I do think that data can be a very good solvent for the stains of lying. The best rejoinder to the FEMA case are the facts and, even better, comparative ones.
When I was at NPR, a big concern around calling out lies, big or small, in interviews with folks from a particular political persuasion or 2017-2020 admin officials was the risk that "they won't come back." My response was always, "So what?"
So spot on, Dick, thank you! I am forwarding it around to some folks who are still fully in the game..hope they will heed some of this advice within their news orgs.
When information in a response to a FOIA request is redacted, the government must cite the specific statute that allows for that redaction to occur.
Newspapers have written policies about when to grant someone anonymity. Every time a newspaper grants a source anonymity, they should have to cite the section of their anonymity policy that allows them to do so in the same manner.
Journos could also use language such as "Trump apparently lied when he said..." Follow that by why you fell he "apparently lied."
When Trump said we've given 60 million in aid to Gazans when the figure is actually $3 million dispensed out of $30 million promised, you can argue as the real figure (the truth) was from a government source. Trump should have known.
You get the word lie into the story or hed, and you protect yourself from libel. Otherwise, Trump could argue that he was misinformed, and we can't prove he wasn't.
Really good piece, great insights. Kudos to those who resined from The Wash Post, 60 Minutes, etc. Perhaps those entities didn’t outright lie, but they didn’t and still don’t allow the truth. Investing has to go deep and caving in won’t solve anything. Amazing that at least on this one, the WSJ got it right
Amen to all, Dick. I would also remind my colleagues that when a source is granted anonymity and demonstrably lies, she or he has violated the anonymity-for-truth contract and should be called out by name in public. Some DC reporters who rely heavily on unnamed sources would get nervous about this, but it’s part of the job.
"Burn 'em," per the old phrase.
Most thoughtful and should be mandatory reading by every serious journalist. Without integrity, we are nothing.
Very much appreciate this, especially coming from you. Hope you might share internally.
Consider it done. Thank you.
Amen. I've now extended this practice to openly calling out non-journalists who repeat lies. Example: Yesterday, I got my hair cut. One of the other barbers talked about this "story." I did one quick search and said, “That never happened. It's a lie.” She said, “But I heard it on my podcast when I was on the treadmill at Gainesville Fitness.” I said, “You deserve better company on that treadmill.” https://thenerdstash.com/oprah-slammed-for-allegedly-blocking-her-private-road-in-hawaii-amid-tsunami-evacuation-we-poor-folks-might-scratch-up-her-nice-new-asphalt/
As journalists, we need to stop enabling the international addiction of amygdala tickling. We don't need those eggs.
Agreed. And when spokespersons refuse to be identified, media ought to say that. “A spokesperson who refused to be identified denied the truth of the allegations, bit did not offer any evidence that the allegations were false.”
And yes, ban people from TV when they openly lie — just as we ban people from planes when they cause trouble flying. Trump calls it “positive thinking” when he pretends reality isn’t reality, but it’s time to refuse to accept his counterfeit truth, just as we’d refuse to accept counterfeit money.
Yes, Fox and other cable TV channels will ban non-Trumpers when they don’t repeat “Trump truth,” but that will be an open acknowledgment that we live in different universes. And good luck to FEMA as people begin to realize where the truth lies . . .
Reform needs to begin with embracing diversity of thought in newsrooms and editorial boards, bias is inevitable when everyone in the news chain processes information in a similar manner. Highlighting inconsistencies between data and statements by public figures is part of good journalism, but it needs to be consistently applied independent of the speakers political affiliation. At the same time be mindful that hyperbole & exaggeration have been part of human discourse since forever (if you don’t believe it, go read the graffiti on the walls in Pompey), you need to consider speaking style & intent (diversity of thought helps here) before labeling a statement a “lie”. And over the past decade “journalists” in the course of covering topics such as “Russian collusion”, “mostly peaceful demonstrations” the Hunter Biden laptop and “sharp as a tack Joe” have wittingly or unwittingly peddled a large pile of excrement to the public. Journalists need to own up to this, it’s going to take decades of exemplary journalism to dig yourselves out of the credibility hole you have dug. And redemption starts with embracing diversity of thought.
I largely agree with this, and thanks for it. On two of your examples, Russia’s meddling in 2016 and Hunter Biden, please see the link below:
https://dicktofel.substack.com/p/modest-proposals-for-fixing-npr?utm_source=publication-search
We need to be careful not to oversimplify these sorts of incidents as history jells.
On Biden’s frailty, I very much agree (and I found his pardon of his son appalling).
Easy to get caught up in this stuff. My understanding is Paul Manafort was convicted of a variety of offenses related to his involvement with Ukraine and not disclosing the income received on his tax returns. These offenses predated the 2016 campaign, and once Paul’s entanglement with Ukraine became known he was removed from the campaign. It is unclear to me how many of the 18 counts that were ultimately brought against Paul would have been filed had the Crossfire Hurricane investigation not been launched. The 18 counts and possible life sentence that comes with them are a powerful tool for a prosecutor to use to gain cooperation from a potential witness. At any rate, the charges were unrelated to Russian collusion, and it’s sloppy journalism to use convictions such as Paul’s to support the collusion narrative.
Michael Flynn is a more serious matter. Flynn had differed with Obama on U.S. relations with the Muslim world, and Obama ultimately removed him from his position, which was Obama’s prerogative. I mention this as it is evidence of animas between Obama and Flynn. Following Flynn being named nations security ambassador by the incoming Trump administration Flynn had conversations with the Russian ambassador over an upcoming vote in the UN and Russia not escalating matters following the Obama administration expelling a number of Russian personnel. These conversations were recorded by our intelligence agencies, and Flynn was subsequently asked to sit for an interview with the FBI as it appeared that some of Flynn’s statements to the Trump team on these discussions were not truthful. Prior to the interview, one of the FBI agents asked “what is our goal, truth/admission or guilt or to get him to lie so he can be prosecuted or fired”. Flynn was not Mirandized nor did he have counsel present. The interview was a perjury trap, normally when one is questioned about a conversation or document the material is placed in front of you, you are asked to read it, then explain whatever point it is the investigator is interested in (I have been there in a very different context). Flynn’s response didn’t match the transcript of the call, and thus it was claimed Flynn was lying. It is interesting to note that agent Pientka’s form 302 summarizing the interview didn’t indicate that Flynn was being untruthful, however Pientka’s 302 was subsequently edited heavily by Peter Strzok to carry the desired message, this editing was against policy. But again, while Flynn was caught up in the Meuller investigation, the events of interest happened after the election, and had no bearing on possible Russian interference in the 2016 election, to imply otherwise is poor journalism.
Guilty pleas themselves need to be taken with a grain of salt in federal cases. In both of these cases individual defendants with limited means are fighting the unlimited resources of the federal government. The government can and does delay proceedings, delay discovery and withhold evidence. At some point the $$ run out and the defendant is faced with being poorly represented by a public defender and being convicted on all counts or cutting a deal with the prosecution. There is a reason that something like 97% of federal cases settle and never go to trial. If justice is served when 15 charges drop down to 1-2, then why were the 15 charges brought in the first place? When these cases settle the governments case & conduct is never tested in a court of law, which further emboldens prosecutors to charge more aggressively. This needs a lot of attention from journalists.
Steve
Sorry, but this feels like a pretty extended rationalization of criminal conduct. Trump fired Flynn for lying, and he had no business at that point talking to the Russian ambassador. Also, you ignore the proven efforts by Russia to influence the campaign, as well as the roles of Roger Stone and Wikileaks. Let me note that most of the Steele dossier does not seem to have held up under scrutiny; hope you could similarly concede the problems that do remain.
The REAL real issue, IMO, is Mueller's timidity on matters that were justiciable. That timidity includes him — and other special prosecutors — giving undue weight to that early 1970s opinion (which is all it is, a legal opinion) from the Office of Legal Counsel within DOJ that sitting presidents can't be indicted.
Balderdash, and nugatory, to use another legal term. It ignored — and all special prosecutors who have cited it have reinforced the ignorance — that impeachment is a civil process and a civil process ONLY.
Of course, with John Marshall Roberts since this time giving Trump 3/4 of a get out of jail free card ...
On the NPR funding issue, too bad NPR didn't actually ask for what you proposed. (Or NPR+ PBS.)
I agree with Steve's analysis. Newsrooms and news organizations would better serve the public trust if they would strive to explain the various sides, rationales, and interpretations of the events and people they cover. To me, this is of far greater import than encouraging reporters to call out liars, when their own bias can color what they perceive as an outright "yes, this person 100% knew it" lie. It also invites status-seeking through virtue signaling.
Reporters would better serve their readers if they would also stop granting anonymity so freely, which allows sources to shape stories (in no small part because the reporter is sympathetic to their politics). "Sources say..." is part of the journalist's lexicon. They cultivate resources within government, and they mutually benefit from having a story to file and a narrative to promote.
You talk about it being infuriating that Kristi Noem talked about one thing when she should have been doing another. I would argue that you probably describe the majority of the way journalists perceive their jobs: not to inform as much as to adjudicate. But that's about values, not strictly "here are the facts" reportage.
And this presentation of the liberal and progressive views as entirely normative is why journalism, as currently practiced, deserves to be held in low regard. It's not currently, as I was taught in J-school, giving people the information they need to govern themselves (though, to be fair, they may think they're doing that), but presenting a narrowly tailored version of news items, infused with one's own values, in order to guide readers to the "correct" view.
This is the way most mainstream news operations function, especially NPR. It gives most of the weight to the arguments that support liberal views of the role of government, of cultural issues, and that oppose Trump and Republican and conservative opinions, values, and actions.
I don't want an All Things Considered reporter emoting "What does this mean for the CPB?" or Scott Horsley giving me his curated version of why Trump's tariffs are flawed and we hear little to nothing of an opposing set of rationales.
That's the NPR way: so many stories are presented through this gatekeeping filter of what they think matters. Fair enough, but maybe get some more open-minded people to do that work. Which I see as a main point of Uri Berliner's article.
As we saw from the fallout of the Biden debate/dropout kerfuffle, this narrow view of what matters is reinforced by the attendant concern that if you give your audience a wide array of information and perspectives, they could choose "wrong."
Well, that's part of living in a free democratic society. I'd rather newsrooms address these fundamental issues of bias and tribalist "our side is the best side" than make it a practice to punish sources for lying to them.
If only newsrooms would explain the non-duopoly parties sides, interpretations, etc. But, that will never happen.
Contra you, while the "framing" issue is right, what the framing cuts out is wrong on your view of what's cut out.
And, per Dick's theme? I looked at who you follow on Substack and there's multiple serial liars there. (Hands Anthony a mirror.)
I agree - the only thing we can do is have a certain truth 'discipline', which maybe over time shifts the course. I'm biased but I do think that data can be a very good solvent for the stains of lying. The best rejoinder to the FEMA case are the facts and, even better, comparative ones.
When I was at NPR, a big concern around calling out lies, big or small, in interviews with folks from a particular political persuasion or 2017-2020 admin officials was the risk that "they won't come back." My response was always, "So what?"
So spot on, Dick, thank you! I am forwarding it around to some folks who are still fully in the game..hope they will heed some of this advice within their news orgs.
When information in a response to a FOIA request is redacted, the government must cite the specific statute that allows for that redaction to occur.
Newspapers have written policies about when to grant someone anonymity. Every time a newspaper grants a source anonymity, they should have to cite the section of their anonymity policy that allows them to do so in the same manner.
I BEG journalists to act on these steps to. All out lies and lessen opportunities for more liars to ha e a platform.
Excellently put! This needed to be said. I hope it will be widely shared, and widely followed.
Hear, hear!
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Journos could also use language such as "Trump apparently lied when he said..." Follow that by why you fell he "apparently lied."
When Trump said we've given 60 million in aid to Gazans when the figure is actually $3 million dispensed out of $30 million promised, you can argue as the real figure (the truth) was from a government source. Trump should have known.
You get the word lie into the story or hed, and you protect yourself from libel. Otherwise, Trump could argue that he was misinformed, and we can't prove he wasn't.
Who would apply these standards?
Editors
If they were of a mind to have those standards why would they need anyone to feed them?
Really good piece, great insights. Kudos to those who resined from The Wash Post, 60 Minutes, etc. Perhaps those entities didn’t outright lie, but they didn’t and still don’t allow the truth. Investing has to go deep and caving in won’t solve anything. Amazing that at least on this one, the WSJ got it right
https://apple.news/Ay_01-t4pTLGeYEhpv1zFFA