Not long after CNN reported that top U.S. intelligence officials had briefed Donald Trump on a document that alleges the Russian government had “compromising personal and financial information” on him, BuzzFeed published what it claimed to be synopsised in the briefing under the dubious journalistic guideline to let the readers decide their validity.
Not only were the reporters and editorial staff at BuzzFeed unable to properly vet the contents of the dossier allegedly compiled by an un-named, former British Intelligence operative hired by political opponents of Trump to gather the information, apparently American Intelligence officials were also not able to verify the contents of the dossier either.
1/2 This seems preposterous, appalling, opportunistic, and lacking in basic ethics at every level. https://t.co/96aAPNz7gX
— Michael Wolff (@MichaelWolffNYC) January 11, 2017
In fact, BuzzFeed admits that the information could be impossible to verify and contains blatant errors:
But the “publish” button was pressed anyway because BuzzFeed wants Americans to “make up their own minds” about the error-riddled, impossible-to-verify information.
BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith rationalized the decision to publish the documents under the guise of “transparency.” In a memo to his staff obtained by Poynter, Smith said:
Erik Wemple of the Washington Post called Smith’s rationale for publishing the information “ridiculous.” “Americans can only ‘make up their own minds’ if they build their own intelligence agencies, with a heavy concentration of operatives in Russia and Eastern Europe,” Wemple observed.
Indeed, the “let the readers make up their own minds” standard is the slipperiest of slopes when journalists evaluate the avalanche of information we receive in this highly charged political climate. Why does BuzzFeed need Smith as an “editor” at all if his function is to merely present “information” to the world without context, skepticism, or consequences?
Not how journalism works: Here’s a thing that might or might not be true, without supporting evidence; decide for yourself if it’s legit.
— Brad Heath (@bradheath) January 10, 2017
According to the BuzzFeed report, Mother Jones and other media outlets had heard of or seen the documents for months before the election—but their journalistic standards prevented them from publishing information they either new to be wrong or could not be verified as correct.
1. For those asking, I didn’t publish the full memos from the intelligence operative because I could not confirm the allegations.
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 11, 2017
That kind of judgment call used to be referred to as “journalistic integrity” and clearly Mother Jones possesses a fair amount of it. It appears the jury is still out on whether the same can be said of Mr. Smith.
