“President Trump.” Among the phrases I never expected to write, this tops the list.
There are many reasons to be worried — frightened. I needn’t explicate all those issues, as they are the source of considerable discussion in the press and other media. Among the concerns, perhaps none is more critical than one phrase in the First Amendment — “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .”
The role of a free press has never been more crucial or in more jeopardy than now.
Make no mistake. There are alarming signs that the president and his minions have little regard for the legitimate press. Despite subsequent ambiguity and backpedaling, the administration declared intentions to banish the media from the White House. Trump’s Jan. 11 “press conference” was augmented by cheering partisans who disrupted and distorted the traditional decorum and exchange of information. Trump publicly bullied and scolded reporters from BuzzFeed and CNN. He has banned reporters from campaign events because they weren’t “very nice” to him. These are the actions of a tyrant, not an elected leader. This dangerous man must be held to account and there is little to indicate that the legislative branch intends to do so. While some Democrats are howling into the foul wind, Trump’s unqualified nominees are likely to be confirmed by a GOP majority.
A complex question arises: In a time when the president and his closest advisers do not act in good faith, do not communicate directly or honestly, repeatedly attack the media as “dishonest” and as “liars,” do the usual rules of objectivity and journalistic constraint still apply? It seems, to haul out a tired cliche, that the press is bringing a small pocketknife to a gunfight.
A fascinating case in point is the debate that ensued after the disclosure of reports about a dossier about Trump that contained allegations of consorting with prostitutes, engaging in business conversations that might constitute bribery, and that the Putin regime has been “cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years.” This quote is taken directly from the dossier that BuzzFeed published. If you’re reading it, the Valley News chose to disclose at least this small piece of the controversial document.
The allegations in the dossier have not been verified and have been denied by Trump and by Vladimir Putin. BuzzFeed acknowledged minor errors in the information. According to intelligence sources, the information was gathered as “opposition research” on Trump, originally intended for use by the Jeb Bush campaign. A retired British intelligence agent with deep experience and high credibility reportedly gathered the information.
The journalistic debate lines were drawn. CNN, The New York Times and others tiptoed on the safe and traditional side of the line by reporting on the existence of the dossier and traced its distribution from the original source to the intelligence community, but declined to publish details. Given the gravity of the allegations, FBI Director James Comey briefed Trump, Obama and members of Congress.
BuzzFeed, on the other hand, crossed the line and published the 35-page dossier in its entirety.
This distinction is critically important as journalists adjust to contemporary realities. Who was right? (The distinction was lost on Trump, who blustered with indiscriminate arrogance at both BuzzFeed and CNN.)
I come down on the BuzzFeed side of this debate. I believe that this incident and other equivalent issues might be viewed as analogous to coverage of the criminal justice system.
The press regularly reports indictments or allegations related to serious crimes, especially those that may have impact on public safety. It is important to acknowledge the presumption of innocence, but covering the “perp walk” and detailing the gruesome, sensational or salacious specifics of a crime has been standard journalistic practice. The governing variable is the source. I can’t, for example, cavalierly accuse my neighbor of assault, treason or child abuse and expect The New York Times or Valley News to cover the story. But the district attorney, chief of police or prosecutor is expected to hold a press briefing and inform the public, long before a court of law delivers a final verdict. The operative principle is the assumed credibility of the source. Rumor, gossip or personal attacks are not credible or newsworthy, even if subsequently proven. Allegations made by trusted officials are initially credible and newsworthy, even if subsequently disproven.
In the dossier/intelligence/Trump/Putin case, the sources are not rumor or gossip. They are the work of a credible expert. The dossier and its contents were vetted by America’s intelligence apparatus. They revealed it to the president and the president-elect. That triggers the right, if not the obligation, of the press to publish the assertions in detail.
These stakes are high. The assertions aside from alleged dalliances with Russian prostitutes are profoundly important and, if true, represent a dire threat to our republic. The responsibility to an arguably outdated code of journalistic ethics pales in comparison to the journalistic responsibility to expose, in detail, allegations that may reveal one of the most sinister scandals in American history.
So, “President Trump” tops my list of unlikely phrases. “Good for BuzzFeed!” is second.
Steve Nelson lives in Sharon and New York City, where he is the head of the Calhoun School, a private school. He can be reached at steve.nelson@calhoun.org.