The boy who cried 'Deal'
One dog barking: an occasional column by John Dineen
How do journalists get at the truth? And how should they handle untruths?
As chatter about a peace agreement between Donald Trump and Iran continues, media critic Dan Froomkin would like a word with, well, the media. He wrote last week:
Trump posted a typically undependable statement on Saturday afternoon, full of weasel words. “An Agreement has been largely negotiated, subject to finalization,” he wrote. “Final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly,” he wrote, adding: “the Strait of Hormuz will be opened.”
What did our top journalist do? Did they respond with skepticism? Did they push back? Did they demand evidence? Did they warn their readers that Trump has zero credibility on this issue? (To be clear: The man has been saying the war would be over “very soon” for going on two months now.
No. This is what they did:
WaPo: “Trump says Iran ceasefire deal in final stages, to be ‘announced shortly’”
CNN: “Trump says agreement with Iran has ‘been largely negotiated’ and Strait of Hormuz will be opened”
AP: “Trump says a deal with Iran and opening of Strait of Hormuz are ‘largely negotiated’”
Where was anything remotely like a warning to readers that he might be full of it? I found them in places like the 14th paragraph, the 18th paragraph, and the fifth paragraph. It was entirely missing from the Post story.
This week, Trump told CNBC he thought the negotiations “started to get very boring.”
Froomkin proposed coverage that focuses on the fragility and unreliability of Trump’s claims. I sympathize with his view, but I wonder, rather, why focus at all on oft-repeated, oft-contradictory statements? Trump has been issuing regular peace-is-at-hand declarations since nearly the start of the war.
The glib answer from journalists is that Trump is president; what he says is news. But I’d say when you are regurgitating unreliable information it is very much a you problem.
I started my journalism career in the suburbs of Boston, first in radio, then in weekly newspapers. It was invaluable training. The papers were read in 80 to 90 percent of the towns’ households. The public officials I met with and wrote about lived in town, sent their kids to the town’s schools. They — and their neighbors — read what we wrote.
That experience taught me to take care with a community in which my writing had immediate and real impact. To take care with people’s lives. It was an exercise in learning to write news truthfully, and fairly.
It also was an experience in community feedback — sometimes as a letter to the editor, but more often a phone call or, yes, a visit to the newsroom.
I got yelled at more than once, sometimes fairly.
What I did not learn — what I did not have to learn — was how to deal with routine lying. I covered towns with a lot of high-quality local officials. Fabrication is not a plausible strategy when reality looms in every conversation on the street, every committee session, every Town Meeting.
After that experience, I spent the bulk of my newsroom years covering federal legislation and policy — news aimed at an audience with a professional need for that information. Our sources didn’t lie, that I recall. They could be withholding or one-sided — they could be factually wrong — but that didn’t spill over into actual lies. After all, they were also readers, and dependent on accurate information.
So, no, I’ve don’t have experience covering officials who make it all up. But public trust in the media — in almost all public institutions — has been sliding for years. Whatever else, serving as a conduit for a daily stream of nonsense is not likely to change that.
Also in the news
Intelligence agencies of Britain, U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand issue warning of LinkedIn recruitment by Chinese intelligence
Albania protests grow over Jared Kushner-backed luxury resort
House approves war powers resolution to halt military action against Iran, in rebuke of Trump
House votes to take up bill to impose new sanctions on Russia, provide additional aid to Ukraine
Senate starts debate on ICE funding without ballroom money; some GOP senators want amendments to clarify $1.8 billion fund is dead
NYTimes analysis: Congressional Republicans begin to test limits of Trump’s power by flexing their own
Homeland Security secretary says ICE will increase new officer training starting next month
Trump administration seeking new path forward with tariffs after first attempt hit legal roadblocks
Trump says he'll nominate Todd Blanche to serve as attorney general
Trump signs executive order eliminating civil service protections for about 8,000 senior-level positions across government
How Trump’s Education Department is backing away from addressing civil rights for Black students
Report: Energy, water use and pollution of AI and data centers rival the usage of most countries
America’s 250th birthday celebration alternatives emerging in D.C.
Revolutionary War’s chief villain George III is being rehabilitated
KFF: RFK Jr. pursuing federal government access to most Americans’ medical records, to research link between vaccines, autism
You can call the Capitol switchboard, (202) 224-3121, and be connected to the offices of your representative and senators. To email your House member and your two senators, you can connect to their websites at Congress.gov. Most lawmakers seem to only accept emails from their constituents, but these leaders accept emails from Americans nationwide, at:
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer
Senate Majority Leader John Thune