Hi Matt, I don't think I said anything about an "orchestrated master plan"—I think you may've been reading some gutter journalism about me that doesn't reflect who I am or what I believe. What I said is reporters can tell the difference between shoe-leather journalism and a leak.
I understand what it is to have a network of sources. I also know reporters don't call up sources and request an itemization of unsuccessful operations their employer engaged in in the last few months. And I know your Russian source was inherently untrustworthy—the story says so.
My definition of newsworthiness isn't narrow—in fact it's clear we've the same definition, as your story as you describe it now is (a) not how you reported it and (b) exactly the story which—had you reported it that way—I'd have said was newsworthy. Did you read the whole thread?
Had your story been properly conceived, not only would you not have both buried and obscured your lead—which is a far graver issue than "rearranged furniture," as you know—but you would've been seeking input from different sources on different topics. The story changes entirely.
I haven't presumed your motives—but you've presumed mine. My feelings on Trump are known—and weren't the basis for my critique. I also know your definition of journalism includes only hard news reporting. But the fact that you're unaware of the other 24 modes is on you, not me.
20th c. journalism is in a state of collapse. It's your livelihood, so you defend it blindly. It's not my livelihood—my livelihood is teaching the next generation of journalists how and why yours failed and what they can do better.
I can start by pointing them to this exchange.
I can start by pointing them to this exchange.
Last thing I'd say is you must reconsider how the model of journalism you're ensconced in betrays "desired outcomes" that *aren't* political outcomes—but more nefarious for being systemic flaws that *produce* political outcomes without any of the transparency journalism requires.
