In the hours following the American strike on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, CNN’s Natasha Bertrand received what would once have been the scoop of a lifetime: a leaked report suggesting minimal damage. However, it’s now clear that Bertrand and CNN may have been manipulated by political actors. In the days that followed, the IAEA, the Israeli government, the CIA, and President Trump all concluded that far more damage had occurred than the leaked report initially suggested.
This incident underscores a significant problem for journalism: the liberal media’s immediate trust in leakers, which may be misleading the American public. While the author supports leakers who act selflessly to expose governmental secrets, they criticize those who leak selectively to harm the president for partisan reasons. Reporters must be able to discern between genuine whistleblowers and politically motivated leakers to provide accurate information to the public.
The traditional media’s trust in leakers is rooted in the perception that they risk personal danger to reveal the truth. However, in today’s political climate, leakers are rarely held accountable. Without consequences, individuals have incentives to leak selectively for personal gain. This time, the Trump administration is urged to find and punish the Fordow leakers, which could significantly enhance American journalism.
The author suggests that the leak was likely politically motivated, not purely patriotic. If the leak had accurately revealed significant damage, it could have served the public good. However, the report was preliminary, with cautionary language, indicating that it was not a definitive account. The press’s responsibility is to ensure such information is presented in the correct context. The author questions whether CNN or Bertrand considered the possibility of a political agenda behind the leak.
Despite claims by CNN that the report was low confidence, the Media Research Center disputes this, indicating that the initial reporting did not include the low confidence caveat. CNN continued to promote this story, which was later found to be misleading, suggesting a pattern of political bias in their reporting.
The article criticizes CNN and other outlets as not reforming, even if sued. The author argues that the solution is not merely to punish the media but to hold leakers accountable, as the current system lacks consequences for such actions. By ensuring that leakers face jail time if they break the law, the author believes the deep-state to fake news misinformation pipeline can be effectively addressed.
In conclusion, the author advocates for re-establishing the credibility of classified information by making the consequences for leaking clear. This could help break the cycle of deep-state actors manipulating the media to undermine the president, ultimately protecting the integrity of journalism.