In the age of President-elect Donald Trump, you never know what you’re going to read when logging in to your Facebook news feed or opening the newspaper.
Some of the surprise is by design. The president-elect built his campaign and the current transition on unpredictability and suspense, and Trump touts this as an asset.
But investigative efforts and reporters working their sources can produce key pieces of information that affect public opinion of our elected leaders and move the direction of policy.
But when BuzzFeed published a portion of classified documents Tuesday night with unverified allegations about the president-elect’s ties to and activities in Russia, my radar went off.
My initial reaction to the details of the compromising information was the same as many — shock, disgust and how it would affect the transition.
But after I had a chance to digest the BuzzFeed leak, I began to worry. I began to question the ethics or releasing a document which even BuzzFeed’s editor said contained allegations that were “unverifiable.”
The news that a dossier regarding Trump’s ties to Russia, with potential compromising personal and financial information, in itself is news. If the document is out there and rumors are circulating, it’s the responsibility of a free press to report everything that can be verified. The American people and readers of news deserve to know the concerns our elected officials have with their government colleagues — including the president. But to publish a document in its entirety which contains unverifiable claims is irresponsible.
According to CBS News, the documents were based on political opposition research by Trump opponents. NPR reported Wednesday morning the intelligence community said the sources for the documents were creditable, but even BuzzFeed admitted there were misspellings and inaccuracies in the document.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., confirmed in a statement Wednesday that he was given the dossier and delivered the “sensitive information” to FBI Director James Comey well before the leak.
The documents had been seen by President Obama and high-ranking Senate and administration officials. President-elect Trump had also seen the documents, but at no point have the claims been verified by a legitimate news organization. Many national news organizations — some of which knew about the documents for several weeks — chose not to publish them for the very reason that their contents were unsubstantiated.
Journalist’s jobs at every level rely on the trust our readers place in us. The validity of today’s journalism is under more scrutiny than in almost any time in the history of the free press. One ethical misstep by journalists on a story, such as the president-elect’s Russian ties, could reverberate from the national press down to the small newspapers on which our communities rely.
I’ve always been more of a cautious journalist than some in the industry, and, admittedly, in one case, it caused me to be scooped by a larger competitor.
But through my caution comes thorough and localized news. It ensures accuracy and explores multiple angles a breaking news story could not achieve.
The desire in today’s journalism industry to break news online before the other guy can bring healthy competition, but it can also cause errors. In the case of the president-elect’s alleged activities in Russia, any fledgling reporting will be picked apart by an incoming administration that is already hostile toward the media.
The people need to be able to trust their journalists are looking into the potential vulnerabilities of elected officials, while at the same time be fair to all who are involved. How we as journalists handle this type of information today will define our relevance in the decades to come.
Contact Mike Mendenhall at
mmendenhall@newtondailynews.com