One Journalist’s Fake-News Moment and How It Relates to our Divides

During coverage of the Democratic National Convention, PBS reporter Judy Woodruff reported that Trump asked Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to delay reaching a ceasefire in order to deny a win to Kamala Harris’s campaign. Netanyahu and Trump denied that report. 

Woodruff apologized, saying that she had based her statement on reporting by Axios and Reuters, but hadn’t verified it before going live. Adding to the confusion, the public reports she referenced didn’t mention Trump trying to delay a ceasefire — making it unclear where that information came from.

Many people were understandably upset by this. Responding to Woodruff’s apology, someone wrote, “I’m curious. Have you ever made a reporting mistake which harmed the prospects of a Democrat candidate?” 

Another person wrote, “As a journalist with ANY MERIT AND INTEGRITY, you should know that you never go forward with a story without 💯 proof to back it up. The fact that you did just proves, once again, what Trump and many others have stated. There is no independent media any longer.”

We don’t share this story to pile on in blaming Woodruff. We know that mistakes happen and, truthfully, many of us make similar mistakes these days. Our divides ensure that bias and emotions run high, which can lead to mistakes like Woodruff’s. (There may also be details about why Woodruff said that that aren’t yet known.) But we saw this moment as an opportunity to discuss aspects of our divides that don’t get enough attention. 

Views that Trump is treated unfairly 

For one thing, anti-Trump people should try to understand how moments like this one contribute to the widely held view among Trump supporters that he has been — and is being — unfairly maligned. It also adds fuel to the belief that liberal-leaning journalists and leaders face no real repercussions for being wrong about such things, while conservatives who do similar are harshly criticized. 

At least one outlet ran with Woodruff’s second-hand reporting as if it was first-hand. The New Republic’s article, titled, “Trump’s Latest Scheme to Beat Harris May Have Crossed Legal Lines,” treated Woodruff’s statement as a primary source. They later added an update to the body of the story, but the headline and the introduction of the story remained the same. This dynamic of outlets seeming to be selective in what they forcibly retract and publish contributes to a perception among Trump supporters that many news outlets are biased.

To be clear: you don’t have to agree with people who have these concerns to understand why they have them. Being willing to see such views can help anti-Trump people engage in better, more empathetic ways with pro-Trump people. 

We all make mistakes

Pro-Trump people angry at Woodruff should recognize that mistakes happen. Even in a highly unified country with a widely trusted fourth estate, mistakes happen. 

One symptom of our toxic divides is that people across the political spectrum become more intolerant of standard things (like journalists making mistakes). We filter all events through the most pessimistic lens possible (AKA, negativity bias) and downplay transgressions on “our side,” focusing our attention on transgressions we see on the “other side.” 

Criticizing Woodruff is understandable; it was an easily avoidable mistake and her biases may have played a role there. But such mistakes are made more common by our toxic divides. Most of us are simply trying to do our best in an often chaotic and confusing world. Even professionals sometimes get it wrong.  

We become more suspicious of each other

Some pro-Trump people spoke as if Woodruff told a false story intentionally. But think about that for a second: how would it help her to do that? If she were purposefully deceiving, she’d know that she’d quickly be corrected and receive negative press about it. She paid a price for her mistake. 

We should try to recognize that our toxic divides can lead us to be overly suspicious and paranoid — which can be seen as an offshoot of our increased pessimism.

Let us strive to see each others’ humanity

For those of us who care about reducing toxicity and contempt (which we believe should include everyone), we must all work on reducing bias, strive for accuracy, embrace empathy (even for those we see as very wrong), and try to cut others some slack when they make mistakes. 

These things are not easy, especially when our fears and hostility are at their peak — as they are in the run-up to a close and contentious election. But we must strive to make it a guiding light on the horizon we follow. 

Want to stay in the loop about efforts to reduce our toxic divides? Sign up for our newsletter.