I didn't write much last month because I wasn't as up on the tax overhaul as I needed to be and every time I thought about it, it made me angry. So I chose to ignore it as best as I can. That and the Christmas vacation have helped me get back to a good place mentally again. I plan on writing, but only when I feel like it and on topics that interest me. I've got an analysis of Kansas City BBQ joints to write and an analysis of why I like Zootopia and Moana more than most other Disney films.
At any rate, the Capital-N News of the moment is an excerpt from an upcoming book by Michael Wolff about the Trump administration's transition to the White House and first few months. I linked to it on my Facebook profile. It's a pretty detailed look at an administration in chaos. However, a friend of mine asked some "inside baseball" questions about journalism related to the piece. What it came down to is "How much should I take this as Gospel?"
There are five tests I have to answer that question, and I'm going to use this story as an example of how I work through it.
1) Is he reputable? Is the publication reputable?
This is the first and most basic question. If I see a scoop by the National Enquirer, I don't believe a word of it until others have verified or done their own reporting. But if I see a scoop by the Washington Post or New York Times, that's worth reading. The New Yorker and The Atlantic have incredibly high editorial standards. The Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, and Wall Street Journal all have deep systems in place that double-check sources and verify information. While sometimes incorrect information does come from them, they are far less likely to create crap. I don't always read all of those (I'm not pretentious enough to subscribe to The Atlantic.), but I know if a story comes from one of them, odds are it's fact-based.
Likewise, you can start to pick up on tendencies if you read the same people. Chris Cillizza on CNN, for example, is decent at being analytical or contextualizing events, but he doesn't really bring anything new to the table. It's mostly "These 10 things were crazy, right?" or "This was bad/good for Person X." Or take areas of expertise: If you want a person with great connections to foreign policy/Defense/the military, Martha Raddatz on ABC is well-respected. Jeffrey Toobin is an excellent, measured, reasonable legal analyst on CNN, but I have noticed a recent shift toward hyperbole about the Trump administration that doesn't suit him.
In this case, Michael Wolff does not have an impeccable reputation. It's not been proven that he's made anything up, per se, but others have remembered things differently. There's this story on Splinter, that summarizes some of these concerns. To save you the time, I'll summarize it: Watch out for his anecdotes, because they are occasionally "creative."
Now, there is some artistic license/leeway in describing scenes, particularly anecdotes. Personally, I used a very short leash. "Dan said he told Sheila about the mail fraud in October." Others don't subscribe to that: "At a bakery in Brooklyn, Dan had a confession for Sheila. Over a pair of well-baked scones, the two shared lattes. After meaningless chitchat about the weather or the local sports teams or whoknowswhat, Dan finally got to the point of their meeting. He had gotten a piece of her mail accidentally and opened it, tears welling in his eyes as he admitted his error." Artistic license. I was straightforward in journalism (I'm blogging now... there's a difference.), whereas others weren't. But deciding what's fiction and what's artistic license isn't that easy and requires some of the other rules.
Who is reacting, and how?
Is the person at the center of the controversy attacking the messenger or the message? Are they upset because of what's said or because of who said it? Are they being defensive because their cover is blown? Are they denouncing the source or the substance? How strong is the response?
Saying "I'll sue the person/media who said this!" is usually a sign that it's true. Because if you're serious enough to sue someone, you don't yell about it in the news. Australian actress Rebel Wilson won $3.5 million in a defamation lawsuit after a media source said she was a "serial liar" and had "fabricated" most of the details of her life. But she didn't hold a press conference to announce her lawsuit and didn't post it on Twitter. If the media source or reporter is the problem, that is handled quietly through court, not the court of public opinion. Here's another, extremely recent example about what to look for as far as "yeah, this is probably true": Seth Wickersham's article on ESPN talking about how the Patriots are showing some cracks should be easy to disprove. But instead, the Patriots' statement is that the story has inaccuracies and errors, but they were given an opportunity to point out any and they declined. It's a very, very weak rebuttal.
Politics is a thornier field, because you also have to look at motivations of parties, fundraising, spin, etc. But let's focus on the reaction to this piece. The Trump administration came out and fervently denied several parts of the testimony. They said it was fake news. But they say that about any news that they don't like. Trump himself is more mad about Bannon than Wolff, it seems. Which would be tacit confirmation of the reporting. Meanwhile, Steve Bannon did not deny the explosive things he was accused of saying. Breitbart was originally supportive of the Bannon quotes (Note: They're kind of in an awkward spot, in that Bannon is their chairman while some of their board members are denouncing Bannon's quotes and separating themselves. The whole Wolff-Bannon thing is hard to find on the site now.). Because Breitbart and Bannon didn't start off denouncing the quotes, that is a signal.
I'll also say this: Good organizations have systems for damage control. Big universities, major corporations, etc., etc., etc., have strategies in place. They're like the boxer Floyd Mayweather: He rarely gets hit hard because he's better at dodging and deflecting than anyone else. Bad systems are scattershot and respond to everything without a coherent message. They attack blindly and wildly and fall for easy traps. Consider which type of system the Trump White House has been shown to have. Your answer may vary. Officially, the White House response has been "this is a lie." But unofficial sources point are saying things like "They were stupid for saying that," which is not the same response.
How did the reporter get the information? Can it be verified?
Was it anonymous sources? I've linked in the past to 538's great breakdown of when to trust anonymous sources. Some are good, some are bad. Personally, I can't remember a time I ever used them. But that's because I didn't cover anything that needed anonymous sources. Rural government, Pittsburg State University and Kansas politics aren't the same as national security, foreign policy and White House palace intrigue.
Sometimes reporters will break news from reports that haven't been made public yet. Well, the easiest way to verify it is to compare it to the actual report. If reporter says "XYZ will be announced on Tuesday" and on Tuesday, XYZ is announced, that's confirmation. Other reporters can verify if they saw the reporter if he said he was at an event or place. Video exists (Access Hollywood tape, for example). Recordings exist.
In this case, Michael Wolff was described in the story as having "a semi-permanent seat" in the White House as encouraged by the President. He was in the right place, it seems. He did more than 200 interviews after he left the White House. That's a good sign. Reporters who covered the White House have recalled seeing him there (I saw the tweets, but I forgot which reporter said it so I can't find the link.) Axios is reporting that Wolff has recordings of his interviews with some of the sources, including the explosive ones with Bannon and former deputy chief of staff Amy Walsh. However, one quote about Trump not knowing who John Boehner was, seems contradicted by tweets from two years ago. But one of the most explosive revelations, about a Bannon-Ailes dinner party, has an interesting source: Axios claims that it was Wolff's own dinner party in which there were six total people there. Wolff, Bannon and Ailes were three of the six. Janice Min has already admitted she was there and that she remembered the wild event. It's effectively a verified event.
Does it fit with what we already know/other reporting?
Pretty simple. Especially with larger beats with many reporters/organizations covering it.
Think Adam Schefter of ESPN. He's constantly reporting big breaks, but what he breaks is often verified or fits with other reporting. He reported that the Oakland Raiders will hire Jon Gruden as head coach after his playoff stint as announcer. It's already taken as gospel because a) He already coached the Raiders b) Scheffer's reporting fits with earlier reports about the Raiders reaching out to Gruden and c) Gruden was known to desire to coach again. Yeah, it makes sense.
The Michael Wolff reporting fits with a lot of other reporting. It fits what we know about Steve Bannon, because we have video of his first 100 days. We have reporting about Bannon v. Priebus. We have reporting about Melania Trump not exactly being pleased about the win. A lot of what was in this story was already reported in part or in parcel by other reporters. While the details may be in dispute, the outline of the story seem to fit with other reports.
Does it sound too good to be true?
I would put this another way: Does it seem like people want it to be true?
I can't describe this as anything more than your gut. After going through the other answers, does something still stick in your craw? Does it fit in part but not in whole?
For my final verdict on this story, let's consider what we know. A lot of this Wolff excerpt was verified or proven by other reporting, by possible recordings, by video proof, and by other reporters. We know Wolff has a tendency to... embellish ... anecdotes, but the body of the story is rarely in doubt. We have seemingly only one true disproven item (Come on, Trump probably knows who John Boehner is). We also have a weird "hosting the dinner party that he reported on" issue going on. I also think this story is one that liberals want every detail to be right — my gut is that liberals want this to be true more than they should. Ultimately, I tend to buy the crucifixion, but not the decorative nails: I believe it happened and that he got the story right, but the detailed anecdotes may not be as true as liberals want it to be.
Voter Fraud Commission
I have met Kris Kobach. I have interviewed Kris Kobach. I have heard Kris Kobach speak and have asked him difficult questions. I don't buy what he's selling.
He's been a Tea Partier from day one, and he's even more conservative than that conservative bastion Sam Brownback (this is not a positive). I took Sam Brownback as a true believer — he truly believed, in his heart, in the rightness of the GOP's goals. I take Kris Kobach as something else. It's not good enough for him to make a political action for its own good/merit, but he wants to be seen as the leader of that crusade. Brownback believes in the mission. Kobach cares about being the messenger.
So when Trump, at the behest and leadership of Kris Kobach, created a voter fraud commission that was befuddled with mistakes, errors and basic stupidity, it didn't surprise me. That no evidence of massive voter fraud has been revealed now, more than a year after the election, doesn't surprise me. That Kobach, even with the power to prosecute election fraud issues, has less than a dozen such cases, and far less that show actual malice (mostly people who owned two houses across borders and thought they could vote in two states on differing elections or fairly innocuous crimes), doesn't surprise me. I'll believe unicorns exist before I'll believe rampant, massive voter fraud does. (Russian hacking notwithstanding, but I'm skeptical of actual ballot tampering. Rather, they tried to influence the public through social media and hacking emails.)
Summary Judgments
Sure, it's absolutely honorable to spank your employees at a newspaper. Oh, wait — no. The other thing... it's absolutely horrific. What is wrong with people? • • • Wait Wait Don't Tell Me is turning 20. This is a good story about a show I love but don't listen to enough. • • • Next week I start running again. It's cold and I'm out of shape and I am NOT looking forward to it. But I am going to do so. • • • The kids are both in that "coming up with excuses not to go to bed" thing that drives parents nuts. But Roland's latest night thing is he wants his blankets to be in a nest. A big nest, he insists. And then he (the bird?) lays down in the middle of it all. Suddenly Alyson and I are having to deal with bird care. Did not expect that as a parent.
No comments:
Post a Comment