Read on Twitter
My first thought when I read Barr's letter was that I didn't understand why Trump wouldn't have issued a statement under his own name firing Berman
A lot of folks in media should right now be asking themselves why they credited Barr's written claim in lieu of hearing from Trump
A lot of folks in media should right now be asking themselves why they credited Barr's written claim in lieu of hearing from Trump
PS/ My point is, we're still inexplicably in a media environment in which journalists aren't being cautious about what statements by known criminals are being credited—largely because they're still treating these men like public servants rather than wrongdoers.
It needs to stop.
It needs to stop.
PS2/ I just heard a guest on MSNBC (Rep. Crow) refer to Trump/Barr as "dangerous people"—and that's exactly the framing that should inform whether journalists decide to quote them without caveat. At a certain point a source ceases to be reliable—and can't be reported as reliable.
PS3/ This is another way of saying that *both* Trump and Barr are lying and nothing should be reported as having "happened" until one or both engages in conduct that's legally cognizable, at which point all that can be reported is that a legally cognizable event occurred, not why
PS4/ As someone who teaches journalism (and is writing a book on it) I'd say that all reporters should have a list of self-compromised sources who can only be reported about if the reporter issues a disclaimer saying the source has proven unreliable and *confirmation is required*
PS5/ Obviously, the *right* action—as a matter of journalistic ethics—is to abandon these sources altogether. But if an individual is engaged in conduct that'll influence events whether it's honest or "real" or not, any reporting *must* come with a *clear* disclaimer for viewers.
