The structural weakness of reporting.

In my new alert from the New York Times, I get this:

Click to enlarge.

Going to the article, it is neither opinion or analysis - it is supposed to straight reporting.

But look at that teaser: "Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony in the House impeachment hearings infuriated President Trump and his allies." That isn't reporting. That is mind-reading.

A commissioned officer disagrees with his superior officer, indeed, his commander-in-chief, on policy and is credibly accused of leaking information to the press and to political opponents in order to subvert his commander's authority and decisions. His sworn testimony against his commander-in-chief reveals no wrong-doing but illuminates that his disagreements are on policy and not on the legality of the commander's actions or orders.

In the real world, this would entail a court martial, not just being escorted from the building. An executive at a corporation, doing the equivalent to their CEO, would be lucky to not be charged with a briefcase of civil and commercial law violations.

None of that is in the teaser. Instead the team of four veteran reporters spin and mind read, attempting to cover Vindman's illegal actions and attempting, once again, to re-inflate the trope of an ignorant White House in emotional chaos.

Kind of a tired trope at this point.

Sometimes it there is a legitimately fine line between opinion and analysis and reporting. This isn't one of those times. The gang of four go all in on activist political spinning.

The subheading in the article is

Emboldened by his victory and determined to strike back, the president removed Mr. Sondland as ambassador to the European Union after the White House earlier on Friday dismissed Colonel Vindman.

Is Trump emboldened or infuriated or is he simply doing what any executive faced with a rule-breaking insubordinate would do? I can well imagine that Trump might be infuriated, but that is not the news, or, at least, they do not provide any reported evidence that that is the case.

The "article" is laden with this sotto voce spinning predicated on interpretation and mind-reading.

Emboldened

Determined to strike back

May only presage a broader effort to even accounts

Mr. Trump has railed

Even as he began purging administration officials

The flurry of actions and outbursts

The president was demonstrating that he feels unleashed

The president continued to assail lawmakers

This isn't reporting. This is political advocacy with a by-line.

There are two competing narratives here. In one, an executive acts quickly and decisively to hold people accountable when they break the rules. In the other, an unstable threat to the nation throws emotional tantrums.

What is the evidence for either position? That is reporting. Where is the balance of the evidence? That is analysis. What does the writer believer but cannot prove? That is opinion.

This isn't any of these. It is targeted spin for political purposes.

And it can be hard work. I liked this passage.

Colonel Vindman’s brother seemed to be collateral damage. Yevgeny Vindman, who goes by Eugene, worked as a lawyer for the National Security Council and had no role in the impeachment hearings other than showing up to sit behind his brother when he appeared in November.

Most charitably that might be styled as writing by omission.

It is untrue that Yevgeny Vindman had no role in the impeachment hearings other than showing up in support of his brother in testimony intended to damage their shared commander-in-chief. It cannot have escaped the notice of the crack team of four reporters that Yevgeny Vindman was the NSC lawyer vetting John Bolton's manuscript for classified information. A manuscript which became singularly central in the Democrats effort to revive their impeachment effort while it was withering away on life-support.

To characterize Yevgeny Vindman as having no role other than demonstrating fraternal support is gross misreporting. To claim that the identical twin brothers, both working in the White House with top level security clearance and both intimately involved in different ways in the impeachment process and in capacities where accusations of leaking and misrepresentation were rife is more than flawed reporting. It can almost only be seen as a deliberate effort to mislead readers.

If this were reporting by 27 year old Ben Rhodes naifs, the charitable explanation of careless error might pass. But four veteran reporters? Hard to see this as anything but partisan advocacy. And pretty naked at that.