Tweet
After the Trump “Dossier” Debacle: An Open Letter to J-Students
Sharyl Attkisson
by sattkisson
1/17/2017
Excerpt:
The following is a news opinion and analysis
An Open Letter to Journalism Students: A counterpoint to Columbia Journalism Review’s defense of Buzzfeed’s publication of unverified and false political opposition research material.
More surprising than BuzzFeed’s publication of politically-motivated opposition research about Donald Trump’s supposed Russia connections is the defense offered by a one-time bastion of journalism: Columbia Journalism Review (CJR).
To summarize: On Jan. 10, BuzzFeed published unverified, false, salacious opposition research generated by paid political operatives hired during the presidential campaign to collect dirt on Donald Trump. BuzzFeed acknowledged that the allegations in the “dossier” were unverified, and that some of the information was known to be false. (A Trump lawyer named in the documents as having met with “Kremlin officials” in Prague, Czech last August reportedly never visited Prague.)
In her article, CJR Managing Editor Vanessa M. Gezari denunciates The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The New York Times as “self-righteous and self-serving” in their criticism of BuzzFeed for publishing the opposition research. Gezari claims BuzzFeed Editor in Chief Ben Smith “convincingly defended” his decision in a staff memo, “arguing that the dossier was being read and talked about ‘at the highest levels of American government and media’.” Gezari goes on to call BuzzFeed’s approach “well-established” in investigative journalism: “Release what you can when you have it and see what new leads it generates.”
To Journalism Students: This is not a well-established investigative journalism technique. Quite the opposite.
Responsible journalists don’t “release what you can” to generate leads without verifying what’s verifiable and seeking comment from those implicated. And when fact errors are discovered in the material, it’s a huge red flag. Setting aside good journalism, this fact pattern could be interpreted (in theory) as “reckless disregard for the truth’: enough for even a public figure to prevail in a libel lawsuit.
.................................................. ........
View the complete article, including images and links, at:
https://sharylattkisson.com/after-th...to-j-students/
Sharyl Attkisson
by sattkisson
1/17/2017
Excerpt:
The following is a news opinion and analysis
An Open Letter to Journalism Students: A counterpoint to Columbia Journalism Review’s defense of Buzzfeed’s publication of unverified and false political opposition research material.
More surprising than BuzzFeed’s publication of politically-motivated opposition research about Donald Trump’s supposed Russia connections is the defense offered by a one-time bastion of journalism: Columbia Journalism Review (CJR).
To summarize: On Jan. 10, BuzzFeed published unverified, false, salacious opposition research generated by paid political operatives hired during the presidential campaign to collect dirt on Donald Trump. BuzzFeed acknowledged that the allegations in the “dossier” were unverified, and that some of the information was known to be false. (A Trump lawyer named in the documents as having met with “Kremlin officials” in Prague, Czech last August reportedly never visited Prague.)
In her article, CJR Managing Editor Vanessa M. Gezari denunciates The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The New York Times as “self-righteous and self-serving” in their criticism of BuzzFeed for publishing the opposition research. Gezari claims BuzzFeed Editor in Chief Ben Smith “convincingly defended” his decision in a staff memo, “arguing that the dossier was being read and talked about ‘at the highest levels of American government and media’.” Gezari goes on to call BuzzFeed’s approach “well-established” in investigative journalism: “Release what you can when you have it and see what new leads it generates.”
“Release what you can when you have it and see what new leads it generates.”—Vanessa Gezari, Columbia Journalism Review Managing Editor
To Journalism Students: This is not a well-established investigative journalism technique. Quite the opposite.
Responsible journalists don’t “release what you can” to generate leads without verifying what’s verifiable and seeking comment from those implicated. And when fact errors are discovered in the material, it’s a huge red flag. Setting aside good journalism, this fact pattern could be interpreted (in theory) as “reckless disregard for the truth’: enough for even a public figure to prevail in a libel lawsuit.
.................................................. ........
View the complete article, including images and links, at:
https://sharylattkisson.com/after-th...to-j-students/