All mainstream media outlets unite in condemning misinformation of the sort "pushed" by Trump: for example the claim that immigrants are eating cats in Springfield, Ohio. That rumor has a certain something: it's wild; it might seem unlikely, but it confirms all one's worst prepossessions and hence might feel strangely plausible. The Washington Post has been particularly urgent on the dangers of rumors and lies of that sort, which often originate on social media.
However, the Post needs to refocus its disinformation-fighting efforts onto its own front page. They and all mainstream media outlets seem united in pushing out their own disinformation. Here's a nice example: heavily-armed militias hunting FEMA in North Carolina.
Both of these scurrilous rumors, when presented as facts, could lead to disastrous results. Someone in Springfield might take it upon themselves to defend Boots with a bazooka, for example, and the Post has reported that Haitians face threats. The rumors of FEMA hunters as reported by the Post caused FEMA to pause operations in Rutherford County. I don't know who faced hassles or was endangered by that pause, but it's the kind of thing that certainly could have deadly consequences.
The Post started by giving their readers this on their front page on October 14: "Around 1 p.m. Saturday, an official with the US Forest Service, which is supporting recovery efforts after Hurricane Helene along with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, sent an urgent message to numerous federal agencies warning that 'FEMA has advised all federal responders [in] Rutherford County, NC, to stand down and evacuate the county immediately'. The message stated that National Guard troops 'had come across x2 trucks of armed militias saying they were out hunting FEMA'."
The New Republic, quoting the Post story as gospel, squarely blamed Trump for the terrifying level of threat against people who were only trying to help: "Donald Trump's baseless attacks on federal relief efforts for Hurricane Helene came to life over the weekend, when officials in North Carolina reported encountering truckloads of militia members 'out hunting FEMA'.” Truckloads of militia members out hunting FEMA rolled through the news networks and social media sites. The New Republic's story is still up.
CBS News went with this as the headline and sub-head: "FEMA Crews threatened amid hurricane relief efforts in North Carolina: FEMA says its disaster assistance teams will be at fixed locations after National Guard troops reportedly encountered armed militia who said they were 'hunting FEMA'." That is, various FEMA teams were sheltering in place and were given the impression that they were under siege.
Astonishingly, after a few hours, CBS inserted the following paragraph in the same story, without correcting the headline or anything else: "The North Carolina National Guard sent CBS News the following statement, saying, 'The NCNG has no reports of our soldiers or airmen encountering any armed militia, any threats and any type of combatants'."
Over the next few days, the Post revised its story again and again, without noting that the corrections had been made. "Truckloads of militia" turned out to be one sad sack named William Parsons, who was talking smack at a gas station and denies that he ever made any serious threats. It was exactly the same sort of thing that happened in Springfield: a cat really did go missing; they often do. The explanation that confirms one's prejudices seems oddly plausible to one. So plausible that one doesn’t bother to check at all. So plausible that one continues to believe it even when it is demonstrated right in one's face to be false.
Parsons' arrest (he's unlikely ever to be convicted of any crime) was enough for the Post to leave its extremely-redacted story up without a correction. CBS left its own story up for some time even though the body of the story now contradicted the headline directly. The New Republic is dedicated only to getting Harris elected by hook or by crook, so no correction there. And so on, for all of the MSM. Meanwhile... FEMA crews did shelter in place.
It's a beautiful example of the epistemic distortions introduced by partisanship. The Post's howling failure of basic journalistic standards and norms was facilitated, I speculate, by a politically-unanimous newsroom. Everyone who works at the Post knows that Trumpy disinformation is dangerous. Everyone at the Post would love to see a confirmation of that, which might have the added benefit of helping Harris get elected.
So no one in the newsroom cocked an eyebrow at "truckloads of militia hunting FEMA." No one suggested sending a reported to try to check the rumor, so plausible did it appear. They merely repeated it. When it was flatly disconfirmed by the precise people to whom they attributed it, they just let it sit there. When Parsons got arrested, they revised their own story to indicate that the rumors of truckloads of militia had been confirmed.
Obviously, they hadn't been. I wouldn't need to say that to people who weren't in the tank. But people in the tank can't function as reporters. The last few years have been intent on providing lessons on what happens to an institution when it becomes politically homogenous, when the irrational pall of unanimity sets in. Neither the politically unanimous academy nor the politically unanimous newsroom is liable to produce much knowledge.
They can't report responsibly on natural disasters anymore, evidently. Maybe the Post can keep going with advice columns and the daily horoscope.
—Follow Crispin Sartwell on X: @CrispinSartwell