Journalism These Days

A NY Times article by-lined by Adam Goldman and Katie Brenner reprinted in the Hartford Courant (“DOJ drops criminal case vs. Flynn” 5/8/20) is the epitome of most journalism today. In it, the authors use the most tenuous strands to make their point. It goes like this.

Attempting to show that no one involved in the case against General Flynn, up to this point, was supporting the move to exonerate him, they said this. “Prosecutor’s in Shea’s office [prosecutors’ manager] were stunned by the decision to drop the case according to a person who spoke to several lawyers in the office.” So, readers are led to believe that “stunned” means they didn’t agree with the decision and this, based on a third hand statement from further unnamed sources.

Later they say if Trump was briefed by [Attorney General] Barr, he didn’t let anyone know, and again, according to those “familiar with the discussions”; no one named. Well, Trump said he had no early knowledge of the recommendation. Why not report the actual statement of Trump? Also, left out of the article that puts lead prosecutor Van Grack in the “higher moral authority” category for begging off the case, is he may himself be up criminal or at least, ethical violations of how he handled the prosecution.

Were Adam and Katie too busy to even talk to the lawyers in Shea’s office directly? Did the “the person” actually use the word “stunned” and if so, why didn’t they determine what they meant by it? What about using Trump’s actual statement instead of an, “if he said it”?

It’s a journalism echo chamber as we are now relegated to having the Associated Press, NY Times, and the Washington Post for nearly all our national news and they all follow the same shoddy practices. It’s “throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks” journalism and we are all suffering from it.