Rieder: Tough, fact-based reporting on Trump

The media's role has been an endless source of controversy during this unusual and contentious presidential contest.

Too much free airtime for Donald Trump? Softball coverage of The Donald? Lack of due diligence? Or, conversely, Trump's own vociferously and frequently expressed view that journalists treat him unfairly and are part of a system that is rigged to deny him his due.

Too tough on Hillary Clinton? Holding her to a higher standard? Sexist coverage focusing on her decibel level? Or going easy on a liberal candidate the liberal media wants to see in the White House?

Well, as my friend Paul Farhi pointed out recently in a smart piece in The Washington Post, using the term "the media" isn't really very meaningful since the media is hardly a monolith, but rather a large, diverse, chaotic collection of news outlets and opinion purveyors and social media sites that includes MSNBC, Breitbart and Facebook. You can build a case for any of the above. But it hardly applies to the entire ecosystem.

But as news outlets have struggled to cope with an extremely challenging assignment, there is one unquestionable bright spot: The relentless reporting on Donald Trump's foundation and charitable giving by The Washington Post's David Fahrenthold. It's a stellar example of old-school fact-based digging with some decidedly new-age twists.

Rieder: Trump Foundation scandal needs more attention

It was Fahrenthold who reported at the beginning of the month that Trump had paid the IRS a $2,500 fine because his foundation had made an illegal donation to a political group affiliated with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, at a time when her office was considering an investigation of Trump University.

It was Fahrenthold who reported last week that Trump had used $258,000 in foundation funds to settle lawsuits involving his private businesses. The Post said Trump may have violated laws against “self-dealing,” using money from a charity for his own benefit.

It was Fahrenthold who reported that Trump's foundation functioned as a conduit, making donations using other people's money. Trump's last gift to the foundation came in 2008. Experts told the Post that the arrangement was "almost unheard of" for a family foundation.

In an ocean of analysis and opinion, of breaking news and the flap du moment, this is a welcome island of powerful investigative reporting.

Charity watchdog calls Trump foundation 'unfocused,' Clinton's 'transparent'

Steve Ginsberg, Fahrenthold's editor at the Post, says the journalist is both a classic investigative reporter and a great writer. But there is another factor that has made a big difference in this case.

"David has carried on a constant conversation with readers," Ginsberg says. "He is doing this in a new-media way. He took readers along for the ride."

Ginsberg sees this as a new model for investigative reporting. Under the old model, the reporter would go off and report, often for a very long time, and come back with the goods — the big reveal. Fahrenthold has stayed in touch with the readers, often seeking assistance from the public on social media, filing incremental updates on washingtonpost.com rather than waiting to publish another tome. Ginsberg estimates that only five or six of Fahrenthold's pieces on Trump's charitable habits have run on page one of the print newspaper, and Ginsberg is cool with that.

"We share what we can as soon as we can," he says.

So how did Fahrenthold find himself on the Trump charity beat? Back in January, he spent some time on the hustings, following Trump around Iowa and New Hampshire. At the time, Trump was handling out outsize mock checks to veterans groups, and the reporter though it might be a good idea to see if he was following up with actual checks. "I didn't think it would be that big a deal," he says.

Fahrenthold's research found that Trump was giving far less to charity than he promised. And nearly four months after Trump had promised to give $1 million to veterans, he finally did — under pressure from Fahrenthold and other news outlets.

The broader investigation of the Donald J. Trump Foundation came about thanks to a chance meeting with Post executive editor Marty Baron at the paper one debate night. Baron suggested that Fahrenthold take a look at the Trump Foundation in general, and the reporter was off and running.

Rieder: Win for 'Spotlight' is good news for journalism

If you have seen the movie Spotlight, you know that following Baron's instincts can pay off, big time. It was Baron who suggested that The Boston Globe, where he had just arrived as editor, dig more deeply into the Catholic Church priest scandal.

Fahrenthold has covered a variety of beats since he joined the Post in 2000 straight out of Harvard — night cops, New England, the environment, Congress. He's impressed by all of the attention his Trump charity stories have attracted. But he's not sure he'll ever top the time he reported on a combined muskrat-skinning competition and beauty pageant in Golden Hill, Md. Two of the contestants participated in both.

Outdoing that adventure certainly gives him a worthy goal.

Follow USA TODAY columnist Rem Rieder on Twitter @remrieder