This week saw an intriguing development. CNN published an exclusive report, but the response was far from celebratory. Personally, I’m not in favor of it.
The report indicated that a recent bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities caused minimal damage, as assessed by federal intelligence. Interestingly, it looks like the bombing hasn’t postponed Iran’s nuclear ambitions by even a month.
What’s odd, though, is CNN’s reaction to critics, including President Trump, who labeled the report as inaccurate. The network issued a statement backing journalist Natasha Bertrand and her colleagues, asserting their support for the early assessments surrounding the U.S. attack.
“We completely stand behind Natasha Bertrand’s reporting,” the statement noted, emphasizing that this new information could evolve with further intelligence. They highlighted Trump’s skepticism but argued that CNN reporters should be able to fairly present assessments and not face backlash for accurately conveying findings.
What makes this unusual isn’t just the pushback against CNN’s president; it’s that this kind of criticism has historically fueled ratings during Trump’s tenure. Curiously, CNN is not only responding to Trump but also addressing a wider range of criticisms. From the start, the exclusive report faced skepticism, not just from Trump’s supporters but also from others questioning its validity.
Terms like “low confidence” and “preliminary” were later added to CNN’s report, suggesting the initial story may have been rushed for clicks, which brought about the expected backlash. It appears CNN may have jeopardized its credibility in the process, similar to trends from the last Trump administration.
Over the course of Trump’s presidency, various unsubstantiated claims were extensively covered, often showcasing an ability to overlook clear issues when they weren’t directly linked to Trump or his circle. This tendency raises questions about the media’s trustworthiness, especially when even critics of the president view them with skepticism. It feels like the chickens are coming home to roost for the media excesses of the past.
CNN had to retract a story in 2017 concerning ties between Trump’s team and Russian entities, which resulted in the resignation of three staff members due to reliance on a single unnamed source. They’ve issued multiple corrections on various stories that misrepresented facts about Trump and other related topics.
Even if CNN attempts to present exclusive information that appears favorable to Trump, the accuracy remains questionable.
Then, there’s Natasha Bertrand, the journalist behind the recent CNN report. It may be wise to approach her work with caution; she was the same reporter who suggested in 2020 that the Hunter Biden laptop was likely part of a Russian disinformation campaign, a claim later contradicted by Biden’s lawyers.
As the Washington Post’s Eric Wemple pointed out, Bertrand has built her career on what some may call dubious credibility. This scrutiny of CNN’s latest report seems to highlight an ongoing issue—if so many things they report are wrong, how can we trust their assessments on less understood topics?
Media outlets have often thrived on selective memory, but if the reaction to this week’s CNN story is any indication, that might be changing.
