Journalists Must Become Better Caretakers Of The Facts

The latest embarrassment for the national media was, of course, the BuzzFeed "breaking news" last week about the Michael Cohen-related statement that he was coached by the president to lie before Congress, and that there was, allegedly, corroborating information from the Special Counsel's office. To the credit of many mainstream news organizations, the BuzzFeed story was not taken as gospel, and there were quite a few skeptics--yours truly among them--who were rightfully leery of such a rich and thick slice of impeachment-flavored "We-Got-Him!" cake placed so generously on our keyboards. 

However, among the fish in the over-crowded media pond who did take the bait (or the cake), CNN was about the most egregious in its consumption of every single crumb the BuzzFeed story contained. From dusk 'till dawn 'till dusk again, cycle after cycle, CNN's anchors and talking head experts jammed their forks deep into the tasty bites and pronounced each one better than the last. Lawyers of many species, former federal officials, Constitutional scholars, historians, Trump biographers, national security experts, Senators (most Ds but some Rs) and Representatives (also mostly Ds but a few Rs) and assorted political hacks and operatives (often the same) of all stripes were seated around the glass-topped anchor table, throwing out opinions based on their interpretations of the BuzzFeed story. Honestly, if you want to see a human feeding frenzy, check out YouTube for CNN's coverage and watch the blood pour out of the story's carcass as everyone takes generous bites of what were clearly questionable "truths."

It hardly mattered that before every BuzzFeed story segment the CNN anchors would preface their remarks with "It should be said that so far there are no other corroborating news stories," or something similar. What was clear to me from the beginning, and what slowly became clear to millions of viewers, was that there really wasn't all that much "there" there when it came to cold hard actionable facts surrounding the "blockbuster" story. 

Of course, Rudy Giuliani was trotted out (shoved out?) to denounce the story in no uncertain terms. In a moment filled with irony (as seen in hindsight), nutty Rudy was close to the truth.   

And then, as if to give Rudy a "getting it right" trophy, reality walked up to the assembled lynch mob and poured boiling tar all over their hopeless, desperate, dreams of impeachment. The Washington Post, on Saturday, put it quite well: 

"The big claim led to a big fall on Friday. In an extraordinary statement, Mueller’s office cast doubt on BuzzFeed’s report. 

“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate,” the statement said, challenging the central thrust of BuzzFeed’s explosive story — that Mueller’s team had detailed evidence of felonious acts by the president."

Okay, now let's back off a good distance (the old 30,000' point of view) and take a look at the Special Counsel's carefully-crafted words: The statement does not fully refute the BuzzFeed story; it calls into question the story's accuracy ("BuzzFeed's description of specific statements...and characterizations of documents and testimony...are not accurate.") There is a lot of semantic wiggle room here for both sides, and by Friday afternoon (and well into the night) there was a hell of lot of wiggling, wriggling, and back-walking by CNN and other liberal outlets, while conservative outlets and the universe of Trumpsters were over the Moon with glee and snark. 

My own Facebook feed quickly filled with comments from journalists friends and former government colleagues who expressed everything from anger to spiritual collapse to resignation to unquenchable hope in miracles. A few friends suggested the special counsel's response was simply a device to rein in BuzzFeed's overeagerness to run with a scoop that might dilute Mr. Mueller's ultimate appraisal of the whole investigation. "But note the word 'accuracy', one of my friends wrote. "That's not the same as a full denial," they messaged me. Other friends wondered if BuzzFeed had been gaslighted by the White House...that the story was a clever plant designed to make BuzzFeed a tool for media failure, distraction, and disruption. Personally, I don't think the White House is quite that clever, but it's possible BuzzFeed is that stupid.

Perhaps the Special Counsel's statement is not a full denial but, frankly, it's too late to parse the words because the very issuance of the official comment speaks to something far more pernicious and, sadly, all-too-pervasive: a failure of the news media, writ large, to immediately question and restrain an alleged news story that was freighted with problems right from the start. It was incumbent on BuzzFeed's reporters and editors to reach out to the Special Counsel--not unnamed sources tangentially-connected to the investigation--with what the reporters thought they had. It is Journalism 101: You don't run with poor or questionable sourcing, and you try to get at least three solid cross-checked sources. That didn't happen here. There is no question in my mind that the itch to publish was too great and BuzzFeed's writers and editors wanted there to be something there...something big, bold, and possibly Constitutionally-explosive. 

Who knows? Maybe there were some bones to the story, maybe even some vital organs and a bit of flesh; but for now, the story is just a carcass of a bad decision. And it stinks--not just because it was inaccurate, to quote the Special Counsel's office, but because it contributed to the public's perception of news organizations as nothing more than purveyors of falsehoods. BuzzFeed did no favors for responsible journalists--and there are many of them--and I promise you that the next time BuzzFeed or any other news organization jumps the gun and tries to nail Trump to the wall, they will face even more skepticism.