10 terrible days in the life of political journalism

It is indeed false to accuse media of spreading “fake news,” as that term refers to a very specific brand of agitprop. There is a difference between being a malicious purveyor of propaganda and being just plain old sloppy.

That said, if newsrooms want to have a truth slug-out with the White House, they’re going to have to be more careful and work harder not to undermine their own credibility.

Let’s be honest here: The press’ overall coverage of the Trump administration has had some real problems since he was sworn into office on Jan. 20, and it seems like it has only gotten worse. It’s as if upon Trump’s inauguration, every story became too good to check.

In fact, an argument can be made that the last 10 days were some of the worst yet. The errors were many, and the size of many of the media missteps were enormous.

For example:

1. The Pentagon versus Trump

The Associated Press reported Monday that the Pentagon had defied President Trump by announcing it would allow transgender persons to enlist in the military on Jan. 1.

It’s not true.

“Just confirmed with the lead lawyer on this case: This tweet is WRONG. The Pentagon will *respect a court order* requiring transgender enlistment on Jan. 1. That’s it. The order will likely be appealed before then,” reported Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern.

“No, the Pentagon did not overrule Trump on the trans troops ban,” he added. “I suppose the tweet could be technically correct under an EXTREMELY generous reading of it — but even then, highly irresponsible, because anyone without our background knowledge of the case would misunderstand it.”

2. CNN, MSNBC, and CBS News share in the same ‘colossal f—-k-up’ on Trump and the Russian investigation

CNN, CBS News, and MSNBC reported last Friday that the 2016 GOP nominee, his son Donald Trump Jr., and various campaign advisers received an email on Sept. 4, 2016, offering them advance access to an impending WikiLeaks dump of emails stolen from Democratic National Committee staffers and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta.

There’s just one slight problem with these stories. The email upon which these reports hinged was sent on Sept. 14, not Sept. 4. The difference is important: It means the email was merely sharing a trove of already public hacked DNC documents. So no, this is not the smoking gun; Trump and his team did not have an inside man for the DNC hacks. But his campaign — like most campaigns and most newspapers — did receive a lot of crank emails.

3. Twitter again

A journalist making a mistake on Twitter is clearly not the same thing as a false story snaking its way past editors, fact-checkers and on to publication. But false claims are false claims.

Last Friday, Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel shared a picture on Twitter claiming President Trump’s rally for Republican Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore had attracted a pitifully small crowd.

He was wrong, and the picture he shared was taken prior to the rally’s official start time.

Weigel deleted the inaccurate claim and apologized.

4. The ABC News fiasco

ABC News’ chief investigative reporter Brian Ross alleged on Dec. 1 on live television that former national security adviser and longtime Trump ally Gen. Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that “as a candidate, Donald Trump ‘directed him to make contact with the Russians.’”

But as it turns out, the referenced directive came after the 2016 election. The president-elect reportedly ordered his transition team to contact Russia and other world leaders regarding the incoming administration’s foreign policy objectives, which is standard for incoming presidents.

It took ABC eight hours to issue a correction. When it did, it characterized it incorrectly as a “clarification.” Ross has been put on ice for the latest in a number of egregious televised errors.

5. The New York Times blows its coverage of K.T. McFarland emails: Part 1

Former deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland conceded in a private email on Dec. 29, 2016, that Russia tipped the 2016 presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor, the New York Times reported last weekend.

Except when you read the email, it actually doesn’t look like she said that, and the White House said she didn’t. Rather, the administration said, McFarland was merely paraphrasing the position of Trump critics. The Times’ coverage was made even more dubious by the fact it included only an excerpt from McFarland’s email correspondence, leaving readers in the dark as to the crucial context.

6. No, Sen. Orrin Hatch didn’t say he wanted poor people to die

If you were on social media last weekend, you probably saw a story alleging a major Republican senator said sick children do not deserve government aid because they are lazy.

It’s simply not true. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, did not say he was uninterested in rescuing funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Hatch said in reference to welfare spending in general: “I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything.”

The senator also said in those same remarks that he’s committed to protecting CHIP funding. In fact, it’s pretty clear from context that Hatch was lamenting that those “billions and billions” in waste for people who should be supporting themselves made it harder to afford CHIP funding.

7. The New York Times blows its coverage of K.T. McFarland emails: Part 2

After its first misstep, the Times reported two days later that it had uncovered evidence indicating McFarland lied to Congress this summer when she was questioned about Flynn’s communications with the Russians.

This Dec. 4 article has been heavily amended since publication so that it is now mostly innuendo. The initial references to the emails have been removed, and the story now leans mostly on Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who only questions whether McFarland was forthright in her testimony.

8. Robert Mueller subpoenaed Trump’s bank accounts

Bloomberg News and the Wall Street Journal reported last week that special counsel Robert Mueller had subpoenaed President Trump’s bank records. Both newsrooms eventually walked backed their supposed scoops — the stories that remain are now about Trump associates.

“Trump’s Deutsche Bank records said to be subpoenaed by Mueller,” read the headline to the original Bloomberg story published Tuesday.

A day later, Bloomberg amended the story and the headline so that it now reads, “Deutsche Bank Records Said to Be Subpoenaed by Mueller.”

The Wall Street Journal published a headline originally titled, “Trump’s Deutsche Bank Records Subpoenaed by Mueller.

That headline was corrected eventually to read, “Mueller Subpoenas Deutsche Bank Records Related to Trump.”

The Journal also published a note underscoring the change: “An earlier subheadline said a subpoena from special counsel Robert Mueller’s office requested data and documents about President Trump’s accounts. The subpoena concerns people or entities close to Mr. Trump.”

Reporters and pundits should continue to demand transparency from the Oval Office. Indeed, that’s our job.

There should not even be a who-is-more-believable battle taking place right now. The president and his minions have been caught several times pushing laughably absurd falsehoods. But the administration’s “fake news” attacks have traction precisely because newsrooms keep pushing stories that turn out to be false. It’s not exactly a winning counterargument to respond to the White House by saying, “Actually, we’re not malicious. We’re only incompetent.”

We in the news business are going to have to do a better job of cleaning up our own backyard if we want to have any sort of effective conversation about truth and credibility. This would be a hell of a lot easier were it not for the fact that we’re answering constantly for the nonsense we publish and promote.