Is it ever okay for the media to publish unsubstantiated information? | The Tylt

Below is BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith's justification for publishing the entire Trump-Russia dossier. But the document opens up a host of problems in a "post-truth" world and raises real ethical concerns for journalists. Should journalists abandon the principal job of disseminating accurate, verified information in favor of just letting the public decide what's fact from fiction—especially when trust with the media is so low anyway? No one is sure.

Here's the note I sent to @buzzfeednews staff this evening pic.twitter.com/OcAloWzVzb

— Ben Smith (@BuzzFeedBen) January 11, 2017

Traditional outlets didn't break with norms and kept with the age-old advice of not publishing unsubstantiated information, even though many organizations knew about the dossier since last October. But media purists argue that putting out material containing false or unverified information jeopardizes trust with the audience and is a poor replacement for good, old-fashion shoe leather reporting.

“We, like others, investigated the allegations and haven’t corroborated them, and we felt we’re not in the business of publishing things we can’t stand by,” Mr. Baquet said.

The other major argument against publishing the dossier is that the ability for the press to hold the Trump administration accountable is now irrevocably damaged. If the document contains a lot of false information, the president can easily deflect all criticism or allegations (even true ones) as "fake news."

If news organizations are unable to earn trust with audiences, accurately inform citizens and hold the president accountable, then some are left to wonder what purpose the news media ultimately serves.

The Buzzfeed document has made it really easy for Trump officials to deflect questions about other reports with more validity.

— Abby D. Phillip (@abbydphillip) January 11, 2017

But others, including BuzzFeed, argue citizens should have access to the same information that the likes of CNN and Mother Jones have been referring to for months. 

Is it fair that media outlets and the intelligence community keep referring to allegations from a document shielded from public eyes? This is the same kind of mission that drives WikiLeaks; gatekeepers are dead and the press should trust the American public to decide what's fact and fiction.

Richard Tofel, the president of ProPublica (a highly-regarded, nonprofit media organization), stands by BuzzFeed's decision. Once the intelligence community thought the dossier was important or credible enough to brief both President Obama and President-elect Trump on the allegations, it became newsworthy. 

This dossier, for better or worse, is driving intelligence and possibly policy decisions. Citizens should have access to it.

If you oppose the BuzzFeed decision to publish, you need to explain why citizens should not be allowed to see the dossier /1

— Richard Tofel (@dicktofel) January 11, 2017

Here are perspectives from people who think BuzzFeed was wrong to publish unsubstantiated information.

I can't help but be amused, but yeah, BuzzFeed should not have published the report. https://t.co/1qqLIy9GyV

— Josh Barro (@jbarro) January 11, 2017

No. Without a source, unverified, Buzzfeed should not have published the dossier.

— TrueCopy (@TruthCopy) January 11, 2017

FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2017

Here are perspectives from people who think BuzzFeed was justified.

BuzzFeed did the right thing by publishing the source documents and letting people judge themselves CNN is the one that was vague

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) January 11, 2017

One more reason @BuzzFeed was completely justified in publishing the dossier. This was published in December. https://t.co/DJRrYLdZPE

— Matt Tullis (@matttullis) January 11, 2017