(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
A memorable lesson in journalism that I learned during an internship in college came from the dull task of writing out the arrest reports. My editor warned me to state that a suspect was arrested “on a charge” of a crime, not “for” it, because even so subtle a difference in wording in such a small, quotidian item would imply guilt and be grounds for a libel suit if the suspect were acquitted.
I couldn’t help thinking back to the lessons of my cub reporter days as I read about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden –- and witnessed its mishandling by several left-wing “activist journalists.”
In their zeal to boost Reade’s accusation and lend credence to her claims, people like podcaster Katie Halper, Current Affairs editor Nathan Robinson, and many others effectively presumed Biden’s guilt. But mounting evidence has raised serious doubts about the veracity of Reade’s allegation and her own credibility — mounting evidence uncovered, I should add, by professionally trained journalists who actually knew what they were doing.
To be sure, no concrete proof –- in the form of damning or exonerating documentary or photographic evidence –- has surfaced of whether Biden is guilty or innocent, or of whether Reade’s allegation is true or false. Because of that, only a fair and impartial examination can determine whether the totality of evidence at hand favors or disfavors her allegation or remains inconclusive. But this isn’t really about Reade, Biden, or sexual assault — it’s about how activist journalism is ill-equipped to provide such an examination, and how its poor handling of the Reade story is a shining example of that.
Activist journalism is what I call a particular type of journalism that emerged in the late aughts and early 2010s, promoted by people like Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald, who has also promoted Reade’s story, described it thusly in 2013: “I approach my journalism as a litigator. People say things, you assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove it.”
To put it another way, what distinguishes activist journalism from the 19th century partisan press, opinion writing, or even the tilted coverage of Fox News is its explicit and self-conscious rejection of objectivity and impartiality, which have been mainstays of journalism since Walter Lippmann popularized them a century ago. While it still strives for accuracy, it reimagines journalists as openly partial activists rather than neutral observers. It arose in part due to understandable frustrations with some of the weaknesses of impartiality, such as the much-loathed bothsidesism, the occasional tendency to unintentionally comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted, and high-profile screw-ups like the Iraq war.
The progenitors of activist journalism — Greenwald, Assange, and others — entered the scene as populist disruptors of news: proudly untutored swashbucklers, free of mainstream media’s corrupting influence, bravely barging in to tear down a hoary old industry constrained by sclerotic elitism, and rebuild it for the 21st century. But while activist journalism has occasionally produced some fine work — notably Greenwald’s coverage of the Edward Snowden leaks — his 2013 description of it accidentally hinted at how applying such a litigator-like approach to journalism could create problems as well. If you’ve already decided on a narrative, there’s a danger of preferentially seeking information that supports it while downplaying, dismissing, or ignoring information that doesn’t, even if unconsciously.
And in the left’s coverage of the Tara Reade story, that danger was readily apparent.
While Halper and Robinson were careful to point out that Reade’s allegation was just that — an allegation — the undeniable subtext of their coverage was that Biden was guilty until proven innocent. Rather than investigating Reade’s claim, Halper granted her a sympathetic Q&A on her podcast. Robinson’s writing on the subject likewise treated Reade’s accusation as more credible than Biden and his campaign’s denial. Lyta Gold, Current Affairs’ managing editor, went further, calling the views of skeptics like former prosecutor Michael Stern and Salon writer Amanda Marcotte “unbelievable bullshit” and “rape apologist arguments,” equating genuine skepticism with ad hominem attacks against Reade.
From a journalistic standpoint, it’s problematic enough that these people would treat such a serious accusation as true despite lack of proof while denouncing people who asked legitimate questions as “rape apologists.” Some of Robinson’s behind-the-scenes conduct was even more troubling.
In his lengthy April 10 piece and subsequent tweets that have since vanished, Robinson wrote that he had spoken with Reade and her brother, Collin Moulton, as they were dealing with other media outlets. He wrote, “Back before the story came out, I actually warned Tara myself during our conversation that it didn’t sound from Marcotte’s inquiries that she was interested in being fair and recommended being cautious about her. I think that concern was vindicated. Marcotte used the fact that she couldn’t get a comment from Tara’s brother and friend as one of the ‘red flags’ that justified the media’s silence on Tara’s accusation.”
Moulton initially told The Washington Post that Reade had told him Biden had behaved inappropriately by touching her neck and shoulders and told ABC he had only heard about the sexual assault this spring. He subsequently told the Post that Biden had put his hand under her clothes and “clarified” to ABC that Reade had told him of the assault in 1993. But between his two statements to the Post, he had conferred over the phone with Robinson.
This has led to accusations that Robinson “coached” Reade and Moulton, which he has denied doing. But regardless of whether “coaching” accurately describes his interactions with them, what he did amounted to PR consulting, while operating in a journalistic capacity. This creates a significant conflict of interest — something that journalists are taught early on to avoid.
Then there was Eva Murry. At the beginning of this month, Murry — niece of Republican activist Christine O’Donnell — alleged that when she attended the Gridiron Dinner in 2008, at age 14, Biden complimented her breasts. “This is gross,” tweeted another Reade booster, The Intercept’s Ryan Grim. Robinson promoted Murry’s accusation as well.
There was just one problem: Despite corroboration from multiple people close to her, Murry’s accusation was demonstrably false, as Biden wasn’t even at the dinner that year or the year before. But neither Grim nor Robinson had even bothered to look into Murry’s claim. They just assumed it was true.
In the weeks since, Reade’s story hasn’t fared well either. Extensive reporting by Vox, Politico and PBS NewsHour has cast doubt on her allegation and overall credibility, as have reports that she may have exaggerated her academic credentials as an expert witness in Monterey County, California.
Those outlets’ reporting succeeded where the activist journalists’ reporting failed because while they took Reade’s allegation seriously, they also took seriously its inconsistencies. While they took into account the statements of people who corroborated that allegation, they also took into account those of people who didn’t. In other words, they approached the Tara Reade story not as litigators but simply as journalists.
That might have something to do with the fact that, per their LinkedIn profiles, all of the reporters behind those articles have journalism degrees and professional training in the field. Like Greenwald, Robinson, and Halper apparently don’t. Perhaps, then, these activist journalists could have benefited from J-school and waking up before 5 a.m. to do the cop shop report instead of jumping headfirst into a profession whose practices they clearly don’t fully understand.
Alaric DeArment is a reporter for MedCity News, a sister publication of ATL. However, the opinions herein are solely his own. Follow him on Twitter at @biotechvisigoth.