Reporting-ucopia

Newsgathering isn’t linear. It’s messy and disorderly and time-consuming. It’s waiting, sometimes for things to occur, sometimes for people to talk, sometimes for information to come available. Sometimes for all three. 

There’s no way to streamline reporting or to make it more efficient. That’s why it’s so dispiriting when the new breed of executives at newsgathering organizations fires those who do the work, in the name of profit seeking. They view news outlets strictly as businesses and employ business models of operation, which do not apply and in so doing diminish the product. Fewer reporters and editors mean fewer stories and less information, plain and simple. 

It’s not a coincidence that the Framers included the importance of a free press in the First Amendment, nor that Thomas Jefferson once wrote that given a choice he would prefer newspapers without a government to government without newspapers. 

This is all a Craig Kimbrel windup for a messy, disorderly post that began after I recently wrote about Bigfoot reporter Bob Woodward’s new book. The site’s benevolent* dictator asked if I might describe how the sausage is made, if you will, based on my experience. Unfortunately, I have no compelling stories of breaking news or investigative blockbusters, a la Woodward and Seymour Hersh. 

*[Ed: You hear that, people? He thinks I'm fucking benevolent!]

I was a daily sports grunt for 30-plus years and mostly wrote about games and athletes and coaches. As you’re intelligent, informed folks who are familiar with “All The President’s Men” and “Spotlight,” you likely have an idea how it works: reporters cover events and talk to people; they do accompanying research; sometimes they unearth information, sometimes people tell them stuff and they then work to confirm and figure out what it all means; they try like hell to make deadline; they turn around and do it again the next day. 

What I can do is tell you a few things I know, a few things I think and offer thoughts on a couple things I read recently. As for journalism thoughts and best practices: Be accurate. Jobs one, two and three. A reporter’s or news organization’s sole currency is credibility. If they get it wrong, particularly on a regular basis, or mislead and misinform they forfeit trust by both sources and readers, a death sentence for news outlets. 

Which leads to … Own it. Nobody gets it right all the time, so when you make a mistake, admit it and take responsibility. Promise to do better, then do so. Be fair. Give people a chance to tell their stories, especially in the event of criticism or allegations of wrongdoing. 

This doesn’t mean both sides always get or deserve equal time. Nazis and climate change deniers and moon landing-was-a-hoax types don’t merit elevated platforms. Of course, include the alleged murderer’s claim that he’s innocent, but facts and judgment carry the discussion. 

Show up. Also known as Walk the Job. When subjects and sources see your face in a courtroom, locker room or government building every day, they know you’re serious and sincere about coverage and not some disembodied byline or face on a screen. Make facts inform your opinion. Not the other way around. 

[Ed: FOG:TB T.J. Quinn's story about how he broke a major piece of news related to Barry Bonds' Grand Jury testimony is one of my favorite examples of Show Up, from a journalist's perspective. I've heard Quinn tell it in person, as, I'm sure, have KQ and Mr. KQ. Talk about being in the right place at the right time and doing the right thing.]

Write (or report) what you have. This has gotten trickier in an era of 24-hour news cycles and websites that can be constantly updated. But in the old days of hard deadlines, reporters had to interrupt legwork and research, and present what they knew. They still do, to a degree. 

And just like the old days, get back to reporting a story when they’re done typing or talking. Use original sources and material whenever possible. If not, attribute. Use named sources. Anonymous sources are a last resort, but necessary, depending on the story. Anonymous sources don’t diminish a story’s credibility; they’re sometimes the reason a story gets told in the first place. A source may face retribution or harm by identifying themselves. In any case, explain why you’re using an anonymous source. 

Operate in good faith. Don’t start with an agenda. Unbiased reporting is a myth. All reporting is biased, to some extent. Deciding what to report and emphasize is a judgment call. Many topics lend themselves to easy decision making. Some decisions and stories are filtered through a reporter’s or outlet’s ideological lean – left, right or center. 

Which brings me to … The mid-term elections showcased reporting at both ends of the quality spectrum. Outlets in Texas and Mississippi did stellar work on Senate races that resulted in at least one flipped Republican seat (votes were still being counted in Mississippi, where Dem Scott Colom led by 3,000 votes out of more than 937,000 ballots cast as of Wednesday). Then there was whatever they were doing at the Free Press, the alternative news site with the outsized, provocative founder. 

The conservative, Israel-friendly site has had a bit of a wigout over the election of seven Muslims to Congress. Reporter Olivia Reingold, who has stepped in it on previous occasions, covered Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed’s election night gathering and posted to social media that she saw attendees sporting designer shoes and bags and clothing and expensive watches. She attached a pic of a woman’s nicely shod feet and handbag that she later admitted she had used AI to enhance. For what reason and what she was attempting to convey remain a mystery. Not to be outdone, her colleague Maya Sulkin posted a video of herself in which she stated that El-Sayed had delivered his victory speech in Arabic. He did not. He stated his name and said a few Arabic words, but he delivered his speech in English. 

Sulkin’s video was taken down and the Free Press issued a correction. Why bring up a couple of embarrassingly bad posts from a fringe site? Well, the site was founded by Bari Weiss as a supposed alternative to the lazy, biased mainstream media. It was bought by Paramount chief and billionaire David Ellison for a ridiculously inflated $150 million, after which he made her the (unqualified) head of CBS News with the unspoken mandate of softening coverage of the Trump administration, Israel and conservative causes in general. She has shaken up the news division and its flagship show, “60 Minutes,” firing staffers and influencing coverage. 

Weiss lent the CBS News name to an attempt to link several of El-Sayed’s deleted tweets to 9/11. For the record, his tweets were from 2020 during the pandemic, and he wrote that as COVID deaths climbed toward and well beyond the total from 9/11, he hoped the nation would similarly mobilize in the name of health instead of a War on Terror. Pretty innocuous, but Weiss wanted to find ways to link El-Sayed to 9/11. Do so often enough, imply that his remarks were nefarious and worthy of further “scrutiny” and boy oh boy, suddenly you’ve got yourself a terrorist unworthy of election. Baldly racist and misleading. Another reminder to dig beyond headlines and a once-worthy outlet’s reputation. 

Finally, a recent Washington Post column by Megan McArdle illustrates the cynical partisan landscape in which national-level journalism often finds itself. The Republican party, she wrote, might actually benefit from the Blue Wave in the mid-term elections. Democratic control of Congress won’t be pleasant for the GOP, “so I don’t blame you for failing to look on the bright side,” she wrote. “But there is a bright side. In fact, there are two.” Do tell. 

Republicans have a chance to remake the party and move away from Donald Trump, she wrote, due to his age and waning influence because of his lame-duck status. “Outside groups, donors and GOP politicians will start looking for leaders who don’t lose elections,” she wrote. No mention of shedding themselves of a mendacious, grifting narcissist who they enabled for the past decade, of identifying candidates who are more than pigs at the trough. It’s age and actuarial tables. 

Then comes the kicker, as she spoke directly to Republicans: “Democrats will have the House and the Senate. They will use them to do things you hate. I can’t erase that pain, but perhaps I can ease it by pointing out that if they win the trifecta by capturing the White House in 2028, they will almost certainly end up holding the bag for the looming entitlement crisis.” In late 2032, she pointed out, the Social Security trust fund will run out of money and six months later, the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will be depleted, causing substantial benefit cuts in both and likely forcing large and unpopular tax increases. 

“You’ve been hearing about it for decades,” she wrote, “but the day when the trust funds are exhausted is almost upon us. If Democrats are in charge when it happens, that will be on them, not you.” And there you have it. Never mind that both parties have kicked the can down the road for decades and are equally culpable. Never mind that this century Republicans occupied the White House and controlled both chambers of Congress for 20 of those 26 years, so presumably could have steered us away from the oncoming fiscal cliff. If the GOP simply waits out the next election cycle or two, they can blame the Dems for Meemaw’s and Pap-Pap’s benefit cuts. Voila! Back in power! 

See, it’s all about timing and leveraging adversity so that your side wins. And here you thought politics was about public service and journalism was about informing the public. Silly you.