Once upon a time,
journalism involved gathering as much information related to some current event
as possible. Journalists interviewed people who had firsthand knowledge.
Finding and connecting with those sources of information was usually tedious
and time-consuming. In many cases, people who had information were not
cooperative or forthcoming.
Good journalists also
reviewed as much information related to a story as they could get their hands
on. Sources of information could include court documents and related articles
that had been written previously. Once a journalist had all the information
together, he or she would boil it down to the essentials that consumers would
need to comprehend what was going on.
Ethical journalists felt
a sense of responsibility to get more than one side of a story before putting
it into circulation. At the same time, they frequently had deadlines to
complete what they were working on. They couldn’t always review all the
information that was available or talk to all the people involved by the time
the deadline hit. In order to avoid getting fired, journalists would put
together their articles and stories from the materials they had been able to
gather within the allotted time.
In addition to deadline
pressures, journalists normally wanted to be the first to get a news story on
the record. Being first is frequently referred to as “getting a scoop.” Getting
scoops is one of the ways journalists built their careers. If newspaper A could
get a hot story out a day before newspaper B, newspaper A would generally be
regarded as superior. That is, unless they had rushed things, cut corners, and
published information that was not correct.
Things have changed.
It’s no longer necessary to interview people, to gather lots of information
from lots of places, or to verify information. In a pinch, one source will do
just fine, especially if it aligns with the biases and beliefs of a reporter or
his or her organization. Writing, rewriting, fact-checking, verifying, rewriting,
and editing aren’t necessary either. All that old-fashioned stuff is just a big
waste of time which could keep an organization from getting a “story” out
first.
Regurgitating a
document, or a dossier, is much more efficient. Buzzfeed's publication of erroneous
and unverified documents without providing context was not journalism. CNN was
irresponsible when they passed the bogus story along. The era of fake-alism is
upon us. Ironically, the news organizations that engage in it stand to lose
their credibility through it.
Buzzfeed’s Disclaimer
“A dossier, compiled by
a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges
Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified,
and the report contains errors.”
It appears that two
reporters, Ken Bensinger and Miriam Elder, worked on the dossier post along
with editor Mark Schoofs.
How many Buzzfeed
employees does it take to write a disclaimer? My guess, and this
is pure speculation, is that an article may have been in the planning stages,
but the folks at Buzzfeed knew it would be difficult and time-consuming to
produce. Maybe they had a feeling that it wouldn't pan out because they knew
they were dealing with an operator. However, the story was also too juicy and too
perfect for their readership to just set it aside. So, Buzzfeed put the
information out there with a disclaimer they could use to get themselves off
the hook. Again, this is speculation.
A person who has claimed
to be? That sounds very reliable. Not somebody with a
name. Not a reliable source. Not even someone who spoke on condition of
anonymity. A person who claimed to be something in a package of documents that
was unverified.
On Wednesday, the Wall
Street Journal published the name of the guy, Chris Steele, who was hired to
dig up dirt about Trump during the campaign season. Steele has gone into
hiding, reportedly due to fears of retribution from the Russians.
For a look at some real journalism with no disclaimer, check out this article about Mr. Steele in The Telegraph.
“… the report contains
errors.” That’s like saying “We don’t know if it’s real and we won’t
be standing behind it if it’s not.”
Would it be acceptable
in any other business where accuracy matters to present a report that contained
errors? Getting the story right isn’t easy. Even with softball community news,
of which I wrote some, it’s hard to get all the details right. Nevertheless,
getting the story right is what journalists are supposed to do.
Buzzfeed's suggestion
that Americans could make up their own minds about the unverified material in
the dossier is ridiculous. How is one supposed to make up his or her mind when
the only information available has errors? I could easily believe that Donald
Trump has some nasty stuff in his background. I could even believe that he has
things in his background that could make him vulnerable to an enemy of the United
States. Even so, I would never rely on information like the material in that
dossier until it has been verified.
---
Note: On the morning of
Friday, January 13th, The Wall Street Journal published a note from Ben Smith,
Editor in Chief of Buzzfeed, to his staff. It was dated
January 10th, the night the dossier was published, and it explained the
rationale for publishing it.
"We have been chasing specific claims in this document for weeks, and will continue to," he wrote.
So, in spite of the fact
that two reporters and an editor had been trying to dig a story out of the
dossier, and had, apparently, not come up with one, Buzzfeed moved forward and
published the dossier anyways. That's very interesting because they apparently
did find that the dossier contained some errors. That would have been a red
flag to most editors.
Editors don't like to
use unnamed sources or documents that have not been verified. They
don't generally like sticking their necks out, or the necks of their
organizations, based on unnamed or unverified sources of information. When
using an unnamed source, editors are usually very careful to make sure that
whatever information they're getting is reliable. Otherwise, when a story based
on an unverified source falls apart because the information wasn't accurate,
the editor and the organization look bad, the way Ben Smith and Buzzfeed do
right now.
Why did Ben Smith
stick his neck out the way he did? Why did he think that there was enough
accurate information in the dossier to publish it, in spite of the fact that
his own subordinates had not been able to produce a story out of it? I'd
speculate that the dossier catered to his biases and beliefs in the same way
that all kinds of fake news caters to the biases and beliefs of audiences.
People believe fake news because they want to believe. Even very smart people
and people who should know better can be fooled.
No comments:
Post a Comment