|
Apparently, The New York Times is credible again to the arbiters of "fake news."
The occasion ushering in this miraculous reckoning of the fourth estate? The Times’ Sept. 23 story about Mary Peltola’s campaign for U.S. Senate and her alleged office turmoil, featuring allegations such as angry outbursts and staff shake-ups. Nine former staffers who spoke anonymously to the Times served up the meat of the story, with ample helpings of text message screenshots featuring UPPERCASE WORDS thrown in. Among the sordid details: Aides had to feed Meatball, the Peltola family’s pet chameleon. Someone fetch my smelling salts. And some crickets.
The story presented some wild accusations, including allegations of slurs and staff mistreatment as told by the various anonymous sources. That absolutely deserves scrutiny, and anonymous sources can serve a legitimate journalistic purpose. Sometimes, though, it’s hard to swallow an anecdote without chewing, particularly when what you are being spoon-fed carries that familiar taste of a woman seeking public office being deemed too unstable and emotional.
What really gets my side-eye going, however, is the sudden revival of faith in mainstream journalism from the same folks who derided it the week before.
You know the crowd.
Last week, the Times was “fake news,” liberal propaganda, a deep state operation best investigated by someone with a Facebook account who shouts “Do your own research” all too frequently.
This week? It’s fearless reporting, nothing but essential reading for any civic-minded voter. What changed, you ask? Easy. The story landed on somebody the reader already disliked.
You see, anonymous sources become unimpeachable witnesses the moment their complaints confirm your politics. The supposedly corrupt newspaper becomes a public service. The deep state is doing the Lord’s work — hallelujah and hit that share button!
That is confirmation bias walking in, making itself at home and propping its boots up on your coffee table. If your standard for trustworthy journalism is whether it makes your preferred candidate look good, you’re shopping for reassurance and calling it research.
That brings us to probably the most important part: Read critically and ask questions. Who’s making the allegation? How do they know? What evidence backs it up? Did the person being accused get a chance to respond?
An anonymous source isn’t automatically wrong, and a named source isn’t automatically telling the truth.
Then ask yourself the uncomfortable question: Would you find this reporting just as convincing if it were about your favored candidate?
If you demand documentation when your guy gets criticized, demand it when the other guy does, too. If anonymous sources make you suspicious on Monday, they shouldn’t become gospel on Tuesday because you like the target. Your standards ought to survive a change in party affiliation.
That doesn’t mean every allegation has equal merit or both sides are equally wrong. It means the evidence — not your voter registration — should determine your conclusion.
The Peltola story hasn’t slowed down, and it’s unknown what fallout, if any, might occur. But the next time a story of this magnitude breaks — and rest assured, one will — take your time to read it with an open, unbiased mind.
Have anything to say about the Times’ story? Reach me at letters@adn.com or via our web form.
— Gary Black, opinion editor
Anchorage Daily News
gblack@adn.com |
