See the inspiring stories Come meet us Time to legalize weed?
OPINION
Journalism

Media beware, your credibility is all you have: Column

In journalism, we are all married to each other. A misstep or mistake by one outlet tars us all.

Alicia Shepard
President-elect Donald Trump in New York on Jan. 11, 2017.

BuzzFeed News drew a tongue-lashing from President-elect Donald Trump this week for publishing a 35-page bombshell document with inflammatory allegations about his ties to Russia.

Disclosing the Trump dossier — with its errors and unproven claims — reflects BuzzFeed's principles "to be transparent in our journalism and to share what we have with our readers," editor Ben Smith said in a memo to his staff. He said it also reflects "how we see the job of reporters in 2017."

But many journalists and critics aren't so sure. “It’s never been acceptable to publish rumor and innuendo,” Margaret Sullivan wrote in The Washington Post. The Atlantic's David Graham, meanwhile, worried about the ethics of publishing specific claims other reporters had tried to verify but could not.

Once again, it comes down to credibility — the only real currency journalism has.

Absolutely no one would disagree that journalism has deep, debilitating credibility issues. It’s gotten so bad in this fractured, highly polarized political climate that mainstream journalists simply cannot afford to make any serious mistakes or seriously questionable judgments.

Think of it like the “zinger theory” of marriage, which sees a relationship like a bank. Both partners are continuously making deposits and withdrawals. For every nice deed, one point is deposited. One zinger, though, wipes out 10 points. It’s the zingers — the mistakes or misjudgments — the public doesn’t forget.

In the case of journalism, we are all married to each other. When one outlet makes a mistake or misstep, all are tarred.

Trump makes Buzzfeed believable: Christian Schneider

Can journalism resist the Trump temptation? Column

“If the Trump dossier does prove to be full of inaccuracies, it will resurface in debate every time a credible and supported allegation about Trump emerges,” Graham wrote. “Carefully vetted stories will be rejected by partisans who will haul up the haste to post a damaging dossier as proof that no reporting can really be trusted.”

Despite doing groundbreaking work during the election, The Post had two big zingers recently. What makes it worse is that Post editors won’t answer questions on why either mistake happened.

Many readers got a kick out of a front-page cover of The Post’s free publication, Express, on the upcoming Women’s March. The cover shaped a crowd into the male symbol instead of a female one. When Poynter asked how it happened or whether any women were involved in the cover, a Post spokesperson said there were “no details to share beyond the correction.”

On Dec. 31, The Post made a far more serious, inexplicable mistake that opens it up for attack from conservatives and anyone who wants to believe that the newspaper has an agenda. “Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, officials say,” read the print headline. The officials were unnamed, and it turned out the incident involved one laptop unconnected to the grid.

Two days later, the Post made amends in a front-page story. “ThePost initially reported incorrectly that the country’s electric grid had been penetrated through a Vermont utility,” said the article.

As far as mistakes go, this one is significant. Mistakes erode confidence in the news media. And it appears this one was avoidable.

ThePost's own media critic, Erik Wemple, wrote that his newspaper "published its salacious story based on the accounts of the 'officials,' though without input from the utility folks." When he asked how the mistake occurred, ThePost declined to explain.

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Why Facebook should hire a chief ethicist: Column

Trump vs. 'lying, disgusting' media: Gabriel Schoenfeld

CNN also made an error in judgment recently that feeds the media mistrust machine.

The cable network ran a documentary on the rock band Chicago during prime-time programming on New Year’s Day. But it was produced by the band. Specifically, by a band member’s nephew who directed and edited the film. CNN ran it just as the band is about to go on tour, making it seem — even if not true as CNN says — that CNN was promoting the band.

Yes, at the film’s end, a credit said it was produced by Chicago. But CNN would have served its viewers better by telling them upfront about the origin of the project.

What’s desperately needed is far fewer mistakes or errors in judgment. And much more transparency, and more elaborate explanations of what goes on in newsroom decision-making. To BuzzFeed’s credit, it did this in the staff memo.

News organizations would help themselves by having an ombudsman, or at the least an internal standards editor who will be looking for where its content doesn’t meet its standards. And explaining themselves more openly to the public.

Most of all, journalists need to be much more careful in this fast-paced, partisan information world. Make more positive deposits and fewer zingers, please. Our credibility depends on it.

Alicia Shepard is a veteran media writer and a former ombudsman for NPR. Follow her on Twitter @Ombudsman

To read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers, go to the Opinion front page, follow us on Twitter @USATOpinion and sign up for our daily Opinion newsletter.

Featured Weekly Ad