Isaac Bailey published a column today that is posted on the Nieman Reports website, headlined “Why BuzzFeed Was Wrong to Publish the Trump Dossier - Journalists commit a public disservice when we treat unverified facts as fact.”
Bailey argues that BuzzFeed violated “every basic standard imaginable” and that it was the “the height of irresponsibility.” He says: “Journalists are paid to uncover or discover truth and present their findings to the public.” (Wouldn’t it be great if the majority of journalists actually did that? Instead, it’s a precious few.
David Corn published some information on October 31, but did not publish information he couldn’t verify, even though he had access to the dossier then — before the election.
I find this discussion quite one-sided, with BF taking the brunt it, with CNN coming in for collateral damage. I think Bailey and Corn’s views stink. Below is the comment I posted to Bailey’s column on the Nieman Reports site.
Whattya think, people?
Mr. Bailey, I appreciate the fineness of your ethical stance but respectfully disagree. The truth is that this "unverified" report had circulated among political insiders (including journalists) for months. You assume that it's all right for elites to gossip amongst themselves, the all-knowing Pharisees of the mediascape. After all, they won't do anything about it. Thus, the ignorant peasants stay ignorant and unpleasantness and inconvenience are avoided.
You write: "When your first sentence includes the words “explosive” and “unverified” and “allegations,” that’s a strong clue you should not publish." But it's only a clue, not a decision, Mr. Bailey.
I do agree with you if the subject is a private citizen; even a celebrity, such as a musician, actor, artist, athlete, muscle-builder, etc. But we are discussing a report that, although unverified (and perhaps unverifiable), was compiled by more or less reputable sources, about the PEOTUS.
In my opinion, this dossier should have come out Way Sooner than it has. Seriously.
Do you mean to argue that the ethics of day-to-day journalism are more important than the hand that rests on the nuclear button?
The fate of American democracy may well rest on validating this report. Moreover, the report bears on the possibility of treason by a President-elect of the United States.
I reach a very different conclusion than you do: Journalists simply could not and cannot verify such a dossier. Nevertheless, it's importance is undeniable. I think journalists should hang their heads that they did not make public the complete dossier -- Before The Election.
The allegations in the report that the Trump campaign was helped over a period of years, colluded with Russian agents, and that Russia had material with which to blackmail Mr. Trump -- only a public outcry would have resulted in the necessary launch of a serious investigation. Finally, the findings of such an inquiry is the only way to either lay these allegations to rest or to remove an impaired individual from placing unimaginably large numbers of people around the world in jeopardy.
You don't think that surfacing this report, as an unverified report, wasn't absolutely the public duty of anyone who had it. I would say the same thing to David Corn, who published an article about it on October 31st. Corn has stated that he didn't release all of it because he couldn't verify it.
Think about this for just a minute. The chances of a journalist verifying the allegations were extremely unlikely. In actuality, the only way to verify the information in the dossier,even if only partially, was for a serious investigation to take place. Such an inquiry would have to be conducted by agencies legally authorized to do so. However, your sensibilities would have prevented (and David Corn's actually did prevent) the public outcry that would have spurred such an inquiry.
I think you are both strangers in a strange land, putting your personal ethical ideas ahead of possible threats to your country's fate and jeopardizing the lives of millions of people. Why is that so? Because it cannot be good for the world if a thug like Vladimir Putin is blackmailing a President of the United States. (Really, if anybody is blackmailing the President.)
I write this as a person who has practiced journalism for years, and have also taught journalism at the university level. In my view, the safety of my fellow citizens and the legitimacy of my country's government are very high values. I would not sacrifice them before the altar of journalistic ethics, nor would I condemn others who informed the public of such potential threats. Journalists in World War II understood this hierarchy of values well. But in our world of unique snowflakes, everybody gets to put their ethics in front of the good of the whole. I think your argument is sadly wrong,