ShareThis Page

Passing along bias

| Friday, May 19, 2017, 8:57 p.m.

On Tuesday, the Trib picked up a piece from The Washington Post and ran it as a lead story on Page 1 ( “Report: Trump shared secret info about ISIS with Russians” ).

The Washington Post is often biased toward liberal opinion, but usually fairly reliable with respect to honesty in reporting.

In this story, however, its “honesty” is highly suspect: It printed rather damning accusations, including the story's lead, that “President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador ... .”

Its source of this serious accusation? “Current and former U.S. officials” who are quoted throughout the piece but never identified in the article by name.

The Trib then goes on to further demonstrate poor judgment by adding a Page 2, bold-faced headline to the continuation of the story: “Official: President ‘reckless'”.

In these times when journalism has become untrustworthy so far as honesty is concerned, to reproduce such malicious accusations by unnamed people only helps to further public mistrust.

Shame on the Trib for stooping so low as to pass along — and even embellish — dishonest reporting.

Ed Collins

West Newton

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.