RNC prepares for war against Politico
Hostilities.
Related highlights:
—
The Republican National Committee is ready to go to war with Politico following the publication of an investigative report detailing the GOP's efforts to challenge the 2020 election results in Michigan.
At the heart of the conflict is the fact that the author of the Politico report, Tim Alberta, declined to contact the RNC and its chairwoman, Ronna McDaniel, for comment. A spokesperson for the Michigan Republican Party also says his organization was not contacted for the story.
“It has become all too common for journalists to abandon basic standards including reaching out to the person they’re covering,” RNC Rapid Response Director Steve Guest tells the Washington Examiner.
He adds, “It’s unfortunate and telling that the editors of Politico don’t agree with that basic premise anymore. This saga is yet another example of why Americans have lost faith in mainstream media outlets.”
However, Politico Editor-in-Chief Matt Kaminski sees it differently.
“We solicit direct comment when a story demands it,” he tells the Washington Examiner. “The Chairwoman of the RNC is a public figure, and her position is clear and was articulated in this piece.”
Kaminski adds, “It’s telling that the RNC continues to focus on the process here, but has not raised a single note of complaint about the substance. In fact, when offered a chance to submit a reply, or even a counter op/ed, they went silent.”
At more than 7,000 words, the Politico article is a deep dive into the Republican Party's crusade to overturn the election results in the Great Lake State, which President-elect Joe Biden won with 50.6% of the vote. But entities central to the story, including McDaniel and the organization she heads, were not given a chance to defend or explain their side of the story. Rather, the Politico article leans heavily on political insiders to explain the GOP’s actions, all while the story's author, himself a Michigan native, draws conclusions of his own.
Tensions between Politico and the Republican group escalated this week when the latter's communications director, Michael Ahrens, sent Alberta a note asking why, of all things, he had not contacted McDaniel, who is mentioned 18 times in the article, or the RNC for comment.
This was Alberta’s emailed response to Ahrens, according to the Washington Post:
Our editorial standards are fairly uniform across mediums/verticals. 99.9% of the time, I will request comment from a principal or organization I’m writing about. However, there are extremely rare instances when the person/entity has proven so dishonest and so untrustworthy that I feel no obligation to provide them a platform from which to deceive the public. Sadly, that is the case with Chairwoman McDaniel and her staff at the RNC.
That’s a new one. I am not aware of any journalism standard that says investigative reporters doing original news reporting can skip past the part where they ask the subjects of their coverage for comment so long as they deem the subject “untrustworthy.” It seems as if this policy would make it extremely difficult to cover politics.
Think about it. Politics is a hotbed of professional liars, some more cunning than others. What happens if a Politico reporter writes about, say, former intelligence chief and perjurer James Clapper? Will Clapper be contacted for comment? Or does it not matter anymore? If anything, it seems this episode may become a headache for Politico as it will be asked from now on to defend every subsequent request for comment to known liars.
Asked to explain the limiting principle of the policy that says investigative journalists can bypass the request-for-comment stage of reporting depending on who is being covered, Kaminski asserted his newsroom “was, is and will always be committed to authoritative, in-depth and non-partisan reporting on politics or policy. We talk to all sides and take none. That’s our standard, and will never change.”
Further, he added, Alberta’s report is “scrupulously sourced and based on a deep understanding of the party and issues, but readers can and should judge for themselves.”
Pressed by the Washington Examiner to explain why Alberta did not simply ask the RNC and McDaniel for a statement, and where the line is as far as contacting the subjects of original coverage is concerned, Kaminski reiterated his initial position.
“Editors and reporters make countless judgments a day to make sure we produce the best work possible,” he added. “I won’t litigate those judgments case by case with anyone outside the Politico newsroom.”
This does not answer the question. It is still unclear where the lines are. The traditional principle that says investigative journalists reporting original news should always seek comment from the subjects of their coverage, regardless of whether the subject is a known liar, seems clear enough. But how does one define a policy that says the process can be ignored so long as the subject is considered “dishonest”? How dishonest are we talking? Are we talking Susan-Rice-lying-about-a-YouTube-video dishonest? Or are we talking about Ronna-McDaniel-election-challenge dishonest?
The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple makes a good point when he asks of Alberta’s claim that dishonesty justifies casting aside an important, and prudent, rule of ethical journalism: “Why?”
“If you are accusing people of lying,” says Wemple, “the duty to seek feedback is more urgent, not less. And besides: What’s the point of journalism if not to press the scoundrels?”
True! If nothing else, a request for comment is an opportunity to give a dishonest political official "enough rope." Playing as if it is your job to protect the public from "untrustworthy" public figures is more patronizing than anything else.
Indeed, as Kaminski himself told the Washington Examiner: "Readers can and should judge for themselves.”