CNN: No comment.
EO: According to your reporting Ukrinform claimed not to be a primary source regarding Babchenko's alleged murder, and cited Ayder Muzhdabaev as their source. Did you contact Muzhdabaev to verify Ukrinform's alleged quote? Did you know Muzhdabaev to be a reliable source?
CNN: No comment.
EO: Why did you not report the murder as an alleged murder?
CNN: No comment.
EO: Your headline includes the phrase "critic of Kremlin." But your story does not give any factual basis for that being of headline significance. Why did you choose to include that phrase?
CNN: No comment.
EO: Your correction about the murder reports, "It was revealed that his death was staged by Ukranian [sic] security services." Your follow-on story, "'Murdered' Russian Journalist Arkady Babchenko Turns Up Alive," seems to attribute that revelation to "The Security Service of Ukraine." But wasn't that the organization that already had admitted to fabricating the story of the murder in the first place? In light of that, why would you subsequently accord credibility to that organization's self-serving account after their fabrication was discovered?
CNN: No comment.
EO: Are the fact-checking practices and degree of adherence to generally accepted journalistic standards that you applied to this story the norm at CNN? If not, in what way did this story deviate from your norm?
CNN: No comment.
Of course this Babchenko story is only one instance of CNN violating journalistic standards. But, the integrity of a journalist is not situational. It is not something that comes and goes. It is innate. Its absence suggests a lack of reliability in reporting.
We contacted CNN to give them a chance to tell their side of the story, but they declined our offer. The network people were unwilling to talk about their fact-checking failure.
Unfortunately CNN's lack of attention to the facts has not garnered much public attention. That may be Trump's fault. In his zeal for demonizing CNN I think he's actually diverted attention away from its real deficit in integrity. That's likely a direct result of Trump's flamboyant language. His self-serving anti-CNN campaign is repulsing a lot of people. And as a result the alarming, underlying problem with CNN is going largely noticed.
What's more, Trump's emphatic conjectural allegations have cast CNN into the role of a victim. Because of that it enjoys in the eyes of many the benefit of a phenomenon called "victimhood bias." In plain language it means giving the victim the benefit of the doubt and freedom from scrutiny.
I suggest that President Trump give some serious consideration to the unintended consequences of his rants against CNN. A more sophisticated approach would not only benefit Trump, but would be a service to us all. If CNN's true reportorial shortcomings became widely recognized, perhaps the network would be nudged toward reforming itself and better serving its audience.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).