Journalism that combats cries of “fake news”


The following is an excerpt from Real News, my upcoming chronicle of the Trump-Russia investigation: https://www.amazon.com/Real-News-Investigative-Foundations-Trump-Russia/dp/1510746781/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=


The way that news is reported is broken. This feels taboo to say in light of some of the hate directed towards journalists at the behest of the most powerful people in the country, but there is a problem at the core of news reporting that needs to be addressed.

At the core of the problem lies a wave of opinion and speculation creeping into news reporting. A common tactic among those who consistently try to delegitimize the press is to conflate the editorial section of a publication with the news articles. Too often now, these sections are becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish.

From my perspective, I see three foundational changes that must be made by journalists to salvage the trust of the American people and fill the void left by figures from an earlier generation such as Walter Cronkite:

First, the hyperpartisanship in media for the sake of being entertain-ing has to be reined in.

Second, print journalists should return to the basics of journalism.

Finally, independent journalism must be recognized as an
essential section of the media as a whole, so long as it doesn’t
devolve into conspiracy theories and wild speculation.


Me vs. You Media

What largely exists today is a “me vs. you” media that survives and thrives off of making those with whom you disagree into your enemies. Evening TV broadcasts on cable networks are the main purveyor of this ideology, as they profit when politics and news is transformed into entertainment.

I like to think of the normal blue-collar American worker who
comes home from a hard day at work and turns on the news to see
what has gone on in the world. What he or she finds on TV, however,
is anything but the news. It’s likely some Democrat yelling at a group
of Republicans or vice-versa, with personal insults flying and a painful
dearth of truth.

This attitude can also be widely found on social media, which has
increasingly become infected with purposeful disinformation by foreign
countries, bots, and trolls. These actors have no interest in sharing
fact-based reporting, but rather feed off of the chaos and discord
that comes from a hyperpartisan American population.

There is certainly a place for partisanship in the United States,
though not in the world of investigative journalism. Disagreeing over
politics and even slinging some mud is as American as apple pie. When
there is no separation between these debates and fact-finding investigations,
however, is when we as a population suffer the consequences.

In a similar vein, the “me vs. you” media is creating a dangerous
echo chamber on both sides of the political spectrum. Studies have
shown that people are becoming increasingly partisan and seeking out
voices that affirm their political point of view. Social media is a culprit
in this shift in approach from Americans, but not the only factor.
Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and other platforms have certainly made it easier to “follow,” “like,” or “subscribe” to those who tell you what you
want to hear. It’s the path of least resistance. TV news profits by making
politics as divided as possible, turning the discussion of political
and social issues into a sport, putting profit over people.

In these uncertain and divisive times, a quote from the recent Dan
Rather book, What Unites Us, rings all too prescient: “[A] democracy
requires open access to ideas. It requires a willingness to struggle and
learn, to question our own suppositions and biases, to open ourselves
as citizens, and a nation, to a world of books and thought. If we become
a country of superficiality and easy answers based on assumptions and
not one steeped in reason and critical learning, we will have lost the
foundation of our founding and all that has allowed our nation to grow
into our modern United States.”

It is more important now than ever for the press to recognize the
commonality of the American citizen with his or her neighbor. The
differences between us as Americans pale in comparison to those who
wish to see actual harm to our democracy and institutions. Media that
plays into the me vs. you narrative of extreme partisanship fulfills the
wildest dreams of our true enemies around the world. There is nothing
that Vladimir Putin, for instance, would want to see more than an
America that became so hostile towards itself that it began to collapse
from the inside.

“In recent years, Putin, his chief military strategist Valery Gerasimov,
and other Russian leaders have employed disinformation to spread
chaos for strategic effect,” a recent study in The American Interest noted.
“The Kremlin’s goal is to create an environment in which the side
that copes best with chaos (that is, which is less susceptible to societal
disruption) wins. The premise is Huntingtonian: that Russia can
endure in a clash of civilizations by splintering its opponents’ alliances
with each other, dividing them internally, and undermining their
political systems.”

Our foes prosper when we let partisan politics take up more airtime
than the reporting on facts without prejudice.

We must, however, always continue to debate the serious issues
that face this country. It is in this arena that social media can play a
profoundly positive role. Instead of stoking the fires of division and hatred, the press could use analytics to find out which issues Americans
are discussing on social media and present reasonable viewpoints from
a variety of sources. For example, exit polls for the 2018 midterm elections
clearly showed that health care was the most important factor
for voters, yet where are the debates and studies being broadcast on
TV about the topic? Let the American people drive what the media
covers, not the media organization’s bottom line.

Those in charge of major media organizations have a responsibility
to publish rational, respectful voices. These voices can be from every
walk of life with every political belief, so long as they stick to the issues
at hand, and refrain from ad hominem attacks.


Journalism with Proof

The hallmark of journalism that the American people can trust is
simply empirical proof. Anonymous sources play an extremely vital
role in many important breaking news stories, given the sensitivity of
material discussed, and not all stories can be written with the backbone
of documentation. However, whenever possible, the press should
provide the reader with the records, documents, correspondences, etc.,
that go into producing an investigative report. By lifting this veil of
secrecy and becoming as transparent as possible with the reader, journalists
can quickly silence cries of “fake news” and, more importantly,
establish credibility and trustworthiness.

Whereas anonymous sources and “palace intrigue” stories can easily
be written off as “fake news” because of the lack of empirical proof,
data journalism with documentation is much more difficult to dispute.
This will require a shift in approach by journalists, as most major
publications have largely moved away from investigative reports and
have opted to focus on news that attracts a wider pool of readers, but
investing time and resources into deeply sourced investigative data
journalism is the path forward. This may not be sexy in a world of
280-character tweets and forty-second news hits on TV, but it is the
necessary road ahead to restoring the full potential of a free press in
America and combatting those who seek to discredit it.

I have taken this approach in my reporting, perhaps to a fault, to give the reader a complete understanding of how the information for
a story was acquired and why it matters. In my view, it is absolutely
imperative that journalists show their work, so to speak, and actually
print the documentation that forms the foundation of a news story.
Of course, journalists must still protect their sources and not give
away any human intelligence that could be compromising in any way.
Apart from that consideration, though, there is no reason to withhold
anything from the reader.