CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash are taking well-deserved heat for making and repeating a demonstrably false accusation of antisemitism against Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). The story has been widely reported (see here and here, for example) and is also summarized below for anyone who might have missed it. The bottom line is that, in an interview, Tlaib objected to Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s decision to prosecute pro-Palestinian student protestors. In response, Nessel falsely claimed that Tlaib “used her (Nessel’s) religion” to imply she was biased.
Tapper and Bash repeated the Attorney General’s false accusation and accused Tlaib of antisemitism, even after the reporter who spoke with Tlaib tried repeatedly to correct them. The CNN journalists finally walked their comments back, kinda-sorta, but not in a way that absolves them.
It’s ironic. Despite the mainstream media’s much-repeated concerns about “disinformation”—a concern CNN has often echoed—these two media stars participated in a disinformation campaign against the American people. But moral outrage, however justified, shouldn’t obscure something else this episode taught us about Tapper and Bash: they’re also very bad at their jobs.
Ethics and Standards
Don’t take my word for it. Their chosen profession has ethics and standards, by which they must be judged harshly. The Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) states clearly that journalists must “verify information before releasing it,” which Tapper and Bash clearly did not do.
Despite the mainstream media’s much-repeated concerns about “disinformation”—a concern CNN has often echoed—these two media stars participated in a disinformation campaign against the American people.
The SPJ also advises that journalists “use original sources whenever possible.” But Tapper and Bash don’t even seem to have read the original interview with Tlaib, even though it was freely available online. By all appearances, they relied solely on the Attorney General’s angry tweet. That’s shockingly unprofessional.
Journalists are expected to “acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently,” and must “explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.”
“Promptly”? It took days to respond. “Carefully and clearly”? Tapper said that he “misspoke,” and Bash’s walk-back was even weaker. “Tlaib did not reference (the Attorney General’s) Jewish identity,” said Bash, and “her office says that is not what she meant.” But Bash repeated the false accusation when she added that Nessel (who is hardly an objective source) “says she still believes (Tlaib’s statement) is antisemitic.”
The Code of Ethics also states that journalists must “support the open and civil exchange of views,” adding, “even views they find repugnant.”
It would appear that Tapper and Bash have strong views on Israel-Palestine which differ from Rep. Tlaib’s. Nevertheless, they’re obliged to air differing views without slurs or accusations. They failed to do that.
“Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting,” says the SPJ’s code. “Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.”
The last sentence speaks for itself.
“Stop Being Fooled by Misinformation”
“Stop being fooled by misinformation,” one CNN headline reads. “Do this instead.”
I have grave misgivings about the way mainstream media, politicians, and national security institutions want to treat misinformation (getting the facts wrong) and disinformation (deliberate deception). But it’s always helpful to teach critical reading skills. Experts in that field have insights that might prove useful to Tapper and Bash.
The CNN article covered misinformation research by the American Psychological Association (APA), which writes that “psychological factors make people susceptible” to deception. The APA warns readers about “the emotional content of misinformation,” adding: “People are more likely to believe false statements that appeal to emotions such as fear and outrage.”
That appears to be the case with Tapper and Bash, who seem to have let their emotions and prejudices overwhelm their professional judgment.
The media and political elites in this country are interconnected. They collaborate, socialize, and reinforce each other’s biases. They form, not a “conspiracy” as such, but what Gore Vidal called “a conspiracy of shared values.”
The APA also says, “People are more likely to believe misinformation if it comes from in-group sources rather than out-group ones, or if they judge the source as credible.”
The media and political elites in this country are interconnected. They collaborate, socialize, and reinforce each other’s biases. They form, not a “conspiracy” as such, but what Gore Vidal called “a conspiracy of shared values.” They form a community, comprised of people who know one another and see the world in similar ways.
The Michigan Attorney General is a mainstream Democrat and therefore part of that community. Rashida Tlaib is an outsider: left-leaning, brash, and Palestinian—something Tapper couldn’t resist bringing up when he first made his accusation.
Conclusion
Michigan’s Attorney General was guilty of demagoguery. She overrode the judgment of the county prosecutor and chose to file charges against the students, repeating a pattern of selective prosecution seen all across the country. When challenged, she brought religion into the debate—fully aware that Muslim Americans face great bias in this country.
Two prominent media figures then embraced her lie, amplified it, and repeated it even after being challenged. When confronted, they “corrected” themselves without accepting responsibility or explaining their actions. In the meantime, their lie took on a life of its own, as every “Big Lie” does. It’s still being repeated as of this writing.
That’s disinformation, and it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The disinformation campaign around Gaza, Palestine, Israel, and the protest movement has flooded this country with fake stories that range from beheaded babies to “billionaires” and “outside agitators” supplying campus demonstrators with tents and chains. You won’t hear politicians or media corporations weigh in on this disinformation campaign campaign, however, because it doesn’t come from political outsiders or overseas click farms.
It comes from them.
Addendum: What Happened
You can read more about it here and here, but here’s the gist (if you know the story you can skip to the next section): Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) criticized Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel for overruling county authorities and pressing charges against pro-Palestinian demonstrators at the University of Michigan, a decision Tlaib called “biased.”
The write-up of the interview in the Detroit Metro Times originally included this sentence:
Tlaib also criticized Nessel, who is the first Jewish person elected Attorney General of Michigan, for what she believes is a biased approach to the protest.
“Rashida should not use my religion to imply I cannot perform my job fairly as Attorney General,” Nessel tweeted in response. “It’s anti-Semitic and wrong.”
Even a cursory glance at the article reveals nothing to suggest that Tlaib mentioned Nessel’s religion. And yet, after gratuitously mentioning Tlaib’s Palestinian background, Tapper asked Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer if Tlaib’s comment was antisemitic. He doubled down when Whitmer demurred:
“Congresswoman Tlaib is suggesting that she shouldn’t be prosecuting these individuals that Nessel says broke the law, and that she’s only doing it because she’s Jewish and the protesters are not. That’s quite an accusation. Do you think it’s true?”
Steve Neavling, the reporter who interviewed Tlaib, pushed back. “Fact-check,” he tweeted. “Tlaib did not say Nessel charged pro-Palestinian protesters because she’s Jewish.” He wrote a detailed fact-check. He also addressed Tapper directly on X. “You’re spreading lies,” said Neavling.
CNN’s Dana Bash repeated the lie after Neavling’s pushback, claiming on-air that Tlaib had said “the state’s Jewish attorney general was letting her religion influence her job.” That was false.
