Thread by @npadiak

I see lots of dunking on this tweet bc of “appears to show.”
I went to journalism school w/Josh & can speak to why this language is used, why it may be important & whether this type of thinking should be changed.

So, (oh, shit) A THREAD (fuck—can’t believe I just typed that).

https://twitter.com/JoshNBCNews/status/1277251319233994756

To begin with, this is not a case of Josh being "spineless" or “a coward,” as some have accused. It's journalism best practices as they're currently taught and practiced at the highest levels. So let’s focus on the institution of journalism in our current climate.

At school, it was drilled into our heads to never, ever make “fact errors,” or even “near fact errors.” These would result in automatic failures on assignments. Misspelled names, incorrect addresses, etc. This obviously makes sense.

But another thing we were taught is to never make ANY assertion that we can’t entirely back up or prove. You can’t say, “The mayor cried”; you must say “The mayor appeared to wipe away a tear” or something like that because we don’t KNOW the mayor cried; we’re not the mayor.

Another: If you tell me you feel sad, I can’t report that you feel sad; I have to report that you SAID you feel sad. What if you’re lying? I can’t prove that you ARE sad. And another: I can’t say an event WILL happen on Sunday because if the event is canceled, I’ve introduced a

fact error in my story. I need to say it’s scheduled to happen.

Which brings us to Josh’s tweet. I assume that Josh wasn’t there in The Villages and that this wasn’t his video. He can’t be 100% sure that this video isn’t doctored or dubbed in some way.

He doesn’t know this IS a Trump supporter. And if he says with absolute certainty that this happened and it’s later proven to have been a hoax, a Sacha Baron Cohen-style prank, a doctored video, etc., then he’s on the record saying something for sure happened that didn’t happen

and there goes his credibility.

Important: I truly believe this is different from “both sides” stuff. This isn’t “Some say mayor cried while others disagree.” This is simply saying what is knowable vs. what isn’t—no opinion needed.

Now, does this mode of journalism make sense—especially in today’s adversarial, lie-filled, “FAKE NEWS”-accusing ecosystem? I’m of two minds. On the one hand, this video shows a dude saying “white power,” right? I mean, we can all see and hear that and connect the dots.

BUT, what happens if any of those above things turns out to be true? Then there’s a lot of ammo for the “Journalists jump to conclusions”/fake news/you got duped crowd and it erodes trust in not only journalism as an institution but also the very idea that facts exist—

which, it seems obvious, is the point of the “fake news” bullshit.

I talked a little bit about this in my #IllBeDamned podcast interview with one of my old journalism professors and I’m not sure we really made headway. When there’s a group of people lying with impunity and another group trying its damndest to tell the truth but occasionally

making inevitable errors, only for that first group to use it as “we’re the same”-style ammunition to erode trust, what’s that second group to do? Any justification or equivocation of the inadvertent error seems weak and to be playing into the hands of dishonest people.

(“So you’re saying both sides do it but one does it worse? See? You’re full of shit.”)

I know there’s a movement, partially led by Jay Rosen at NYU, to move away from “both sides”ism, and that’s obviously sorely needed.

But what about this language of facts not being truly knowable or sayable? I don’t know that there’s a good way around it.

But I do know that it irks people to see Josh saying what he said in that tweet, and it may in fact have the same negative effect as getting it wrong: an erosion of trust in journalists and journalism.

/END (crap--I hate myself)