The Trump-Russia Town Hall That Disappeared

By David Corn  April 11, 2023

Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Spencer Platt/Getty

A few issues back, I wrote about a semi-exchange I had with former investigative reporter Jeff Gerth, who had written a massive and misguided article in the Columbia Journalism Review on press coverage of the Trump-Russia scandal. His piece slammed major news outfits and boosted Donald Trump’s false, self-serving, and dangerous narrative that this controversy was nothing but a witch hunt and a hoax. The article was dreadful, with inexplicable blind spots and omissions, as I pointed out in Mother Jones—as did others in different venues. In response, CJR announced it would hold a virtual town hall to discuss the piece—as well as a related matter: CJR allegedly spiking a devastating article it had commissioned that critically examined the Nation’s denialist coverage of the Trump-Russia story. (At the time, CJR editor Kyle Pope was involved in a journalistic partnership with the Nation involving climate change reporting.) No detractors were invited to join the panel for this event; the participants would be Gerth, Pope, and Jelani Cobb, the dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, which is regarded as the leading J-school in the land and publishes CJR. Everybody else could only submit questions in advance via email.

So I did. At the same time, Gerth sent Mother Jones and me a list of questions related to my article, including one that seemed more a complaint. (Gerth bizarrely groused that I had not reached out to him for comment when I critiqued his CJR opus, but an essay about an essay does not require a response from the targeted essay’s author.) As I noted then, his questions only further demonstrated he had entirely missed the critical and damning central point of what took place in 2016: Namely, that Russia had successfully attacked the election to help Trump and that Trump had aided and abetted this assault by falsely denying it had happened. I proposed a deal to Gerth: I’d answer his questions, if he would answer the ones I had sent in for the town hall. He agreed—but then reneged, saying his editor preferred that he wait to reply until the town hall, which had been postponed. Nonetheless, I responded to his queries in an email to him, and I published that exchange, as well the questions I had posed to him that he had declined to answer, in this newsletter.

The postponed town hall was finally held last Tuesday—inconveniently scheduled at the same time as Trump’s arraignment in Manhattan (I was busy covering that circus). Though I had received an email confirming my registration for the original date, I was not sent any updates with the new date—so even had I not been at the courthouse, I would have missed the town hall. Moreover, many other reporters and interested parties never saw the event, nor was it recorded by the organizer for public viewing. This strikes me as curious for a supposed exercise of transparency and accountability. It’s not complicated to press the record button for a webinar or Zoom gathering and post the video on YouTube or a website. But CJR and the Columbia journalism school opted not to do so. (As this issue went to press, I noticed that Marcy Wheeler, another Gerth detractor who has skewered his  CJR article in a series of blog posts, had just posted the closed captioning from the  CJR event that had been downloaded by press critic Dan Froomkin. I will be reviewing this material.)

Those who did observe the proceedings inform me that one of the questions on my list was referenced. But I don’t know which one and have no idea how Gerth or the others responded. Longtime political journalist and Gerth critic Joe Conason, who was watching, tweeted that Gerth defended his piece by remarking that Trump’s policies toward Russia “were a lot tougher than either Barack Obama or Joe Biden." Conason observed accurately that to say this after Biden has spent over $40 billion to defend Ukraine, decimate the Russian military, and impose comprehensive sanctions on Vladimir Putin was “weird.” In another tweet, Conason reported that Gerth said the Russian hack of the Democrats didn’t much affect the 2016 election. Conason added, “That was a bit much even for Dean Cobb.”

Wheeler was also watching, and she noted on Twitter that Gerth dismissed the criticisms of his essay as mere opinions. She added, “The piece is riddled with error. Just dripping with clear errors.” She also reported that Pope contended that almost no one has looked at Gerth's meta-commentary. If Pope said that, he was inaccurate. I certainly did, as did Wheeler and others. Wheeler’s conclusion: CJR’s “attempt to brush off their shoddy series was thoroughly inadequate to the problems with the piece.”

Afterward, Wheeler reiterated a killer point that also apparently went unaddressed at the town hall. Gerth had relied on an unreliable Russian intelligence report to state that Hillary Clinton in 2016 had attempted to whip up the story of Russia interference in the election to “vilify” Trump. This claim about Clinton, Wheeler explains, is a central part of Gerth’s narrative, which suggests that “the press’ concerns about Trump and Russia stemmed exclusively from efforts...generated by Hillary.” In other words, according to Gerth, there was little, if any, factual basis for concern or coverage of Russian intervention in the election. It was all political gamesmanship ginned up by the Clintonites through the infamous Steele dossier and an unconfirmed claim that a Trump business had an odd digital connection to a Russian bank. To wit, Trump was right: The Russia scandal was a complete hoax. As Wheeler ably showed, in making this case, Gerth did not inform his readers that this allegation about the Clinton campaign originated with a Russian intelligence report that US intelligence—including John Ratcliffe, Trump’s director of national intelligence—did not consider fully credible.

Gerth committed a major reportorial and factual error—citing unconfirmed Russian intelligence without disclosing that he was doing so. Leaving this huge blunder unacknowledged underscored the severe limitations of this town hall.

Apparently the general response from the panel, not surprisingly, was mostly a defense of Gerth’s piece and dismissive of the Nation magazine matter. But those of us who did not tune in will never know the full details. (We can look at the preserved closed captioning.) It is disappointing that a magazine supposedly representing the gold standard in journalistic integrity not only failed with the Gerth article but also failed in conducting and preserving a good-faith appraisal of this episode.

I have asked Gerth if he would respond to the full list of questions I sent him, and I added to that list questions about the virtual town hall. He said he is on a family trip and will get back to me afterward. I’ll keep you posted.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.

A Trump-Russia Denier on the Run

Speaking of Trump-Russia deniers, let’s turn to writer Matt Taibbi, yet another champion of that bogus claim that the Russian attack on the 2016 election was a hoax concocted by the media and Democrats. Taibbi recently has been in the news for being one of the writers of the so-called Twitter Files reports, which have helped Elon Musk and the Republicans push the sham story that Big Tech, the Deep State, and the Dems cooked up a “censorship industrial complex” (as Taibbi calls it) that has silenced conservatives and that helped Joe Biden win the presidency. (The Twitter Files are a series of much-criticized articles that were based on internal Twitter documents that Musk made available to handpicked writers.) As I noted following the publication of the Gerth article, several prominent Trump-Russia naysayers, including Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, Musk, and Taibbi, tried to weaponize Gerth’s piece for their own purposes but refused to engage in an honest debate about the Russian attack on the 2016 campaign and how Trump aided and abetted that assault. Now we can see why.

Taibbi recently appeared on the show of MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan, and Hasan eviscerated him. The subject was not Trump and Russia, but the Twitter Files. In devastating fashion, Hasan showed how Taibbi had made crucial errors of fact and characterization. Throughout the interview, Taibbi seemed unprepared and not even in command of the very facts he had been given access to by Musk. At one point, he was unable to respond to Hasan’s question about Musk helping Narendra Modi, the authoritarian leader of India, to suppress information—the subject of the Twitter exchange between Hasan and Taibbi that had led to Taibbi’s appearance on the show. Taibbi’s well-known and perhaps worn-out snark was no match for Hasan’s erudition and command of the facts. You can watch the whole thing here:

For a solid takedown of Taibbi’s bout with Hasan and of the core argument of his Twitter Files dispatches, see Mike Masnick’s piercing analysis in Techdirt. As Masnick puts it, “We’ve debunked many of Matt’s errors over the past few months, and a few of the errors we’ve called out (though not nearly all, as there are so, so many) show up in Hasan’s interview, while Taibbi shrugs, sighs, and makes it clear he’s totally out of his depth when confronted with facts.”

During the face-off, Taibbi refused to criticize Musk about anything, suggesting that Taibbi’s outrage about online censorship is highly transactional. Regarding Musk’s efforts to spread disinformation and to smother information he doesn’t fancy, Taibbi had nothing to say. This created a delicious setup. A day later Musk essentially kicked Substack off Twitter, limiting links to Substack and preventing authors of Substack newsletters from embedding links to tweets. This decision—made in response to the site’s introduction of a Twitter-like platform—was widely derided as a censorious act that revealed (again) the hypocrisy of Musk as a free-speech phony. With Taibbi, who writes a profitable Substack newsletter, now in the position of being directly harmed (and censored) by Musk, he broke with the trolling, conspiracy-theory-pushing, alt-right-ish magnate, and announced he would leave Twitter—prompting many titters from tweeters.

I often get letters from readers asking for an explanation of how and why Taibbi and Greenwald went from being writers identified with the left to helpmates of Fox News who have eagerly boosted assorted false narratives of the Trump right. I have a few ideas, but fundamentally I don’t know. Ryan Cooper, the managing editor of the American Prospect, has produced two videos that each chronicle and explain the journey of these two characters. If you care enough about this stuff, these are good places to start.

The Watch, Read, and Listen List

Star Shine, the Milk Carton Kids. The Everly Brothers, Lennon and McCartney, Simon and Garfunkel, Sam and Dave—there are few male singing duos that feature vocalists whose voices join together exquisitely and become a sum greater than the parts. To this list you can add the Milk Carton Kids, a pair of singing guitarists named Joey Ryan and Kenneth Pattengale from Eagle Rock, California, who have been writing and performing together for a dozen years. Of the acts listed above, they most call to mind Simon and Garfunkel with their melodic and melancholy Americana-infused tunes. They each play acoustic guitar, sing poignantly, and impeccably complement the other. But don’t be misled by the moody dudes with guitars cliché. Theirs are sophisticated songs, full of engaging imagery and poetic ellipses. Moreover, each of the duo is a wry master of dry wit—an attribute that they summon during their live performances as a counterbalance to their wistful songs. (They run a workshop called the Sad Song Summer Camp.)

You cannot go wrong dipping into any of their seven albums. Their most popular tune might be “Michigan,” from Prologue, their second album. (They released their first two albums for free in 2011.) A few years ago, they cut a wonderful and imaginative cover of Pink Floyd’s “Wish You Were Here.” And they recently put out an EP called Star Shine, another demonstration of their continuing devotion to fine song craftsmanship and pensive tunes. The title track is a somber reflection on a love lost. (“Did you ever wonder why / Every time we said, ‘I love you,’ we were lying?”) “When You’re Gone” conjures up a similar feel. (“I'm sittin' in the midnight alone / Can't bring myself to pick up the phone / So, I'm pickin' through the banjo tune / I learned from you.”) The best song on this new set is “All of the Time in the World to Kill.” On this number, they softly croon, “The world won't end the way you think or when you think it will / Time's a thief, why are we standing still? / We've got all of the time in the world to kill / We’ve got all of the time in the world to kill.” The song conveys an optimistic melancholy. Or is it a melancholic optimism? Either way, it’s a beautiful ditty. And if this is as upbeat as they get, I’ll take it.

Hustle. When Adam Sandler was an SNL regular, I was not a fan. Did anyone think Opera Man was funny? But how can you not be impressed with his career trajectory after his graduation from Lorne Michaels U? He has starred in comedies such as Happy Gilmore and The Wedding Singer that have cumulatively pulled in billions and he has succeeded in dramatic roles in critically acclaimed films. He has skillfully followed the route pioneered by Bill Murray. Sandler’s performance in Uncut Gems, the 2019 crime thriller, was exhilarating. So when the NCAA college basketball tournament—aka March Madness—ended and I was still jonesing for b-ball fare, I turned to Netflix for Sandler’s latest dramatic turn, Hustle, a film that tells the story of an NBA talent scout who’s not enjoying his life of globe-trotting in search of the next tall thing for the league.

Sandler plays Stanley Sugarman, a schlubby fellow who was a fine college player but did not make it to the NBA due to one dumb act. He’s now scouting for the Philadelphia 76ers, but he’s tired of always being on the road and craves a position on the bench as an assistant coach. After the new owner of the team kills such an opportunity for him, Sugarman, on a scouting trip to Spain, stumbles across a pickup game and finds the prospect of all prospects: a long, lean, and exciting player named Bo Cruz who no one in professional basketball has ever heard of. He’s big and quick. He can shoot, he can block. He’s the real deal, the golden goose. But he has some attitude issues—and an assault charge on his record—and the Sixers don’t want him. That leads to a Big Decision moment for the middle-aged Sugarman, who must weigh a just-do-it impulse against the need to support his family. He adopts Cruz as a project and preps him for the NBA and—he hopes—a fat contract.

Cue the Rocky music. Literally. It’s Philly. As part of the extensive training program Sugarman imposes on him, Cruz runs the streets and stairs of the city. And you know the rest. The two bond. There are ups and downs. There’s a moment of betrayal. But wait! There’s resolution, just before the final challenge. The film follows the standard sports movie formula. Meanwhile, it is studded with dozens of real-life NBAers, playing themselves or fictional versions. (A shout-out to Kenny Smith, one of the best players-turned-on-air-commentators, who plays a sports agent and Sugarman’s best friend.) Despite all the predictability and conventionality of Hustle, it is a well-played flick made by a team that clearly loves the game—relishing the action on the court and all the behind-the-scenes machinations of talent-spotting and recruitment. Sandler brings to the screen just the right mix of pathos and grit for Sugarman, who stands on that thin line between loser and hero. You can guess how this will end. But it is to Sandler’s credit as an actor that you still want to watch all the plays until the final buzzer sounds.

Read Recent Issues of Our Land

April 8, 2023: Clarence and Ginni Thomas, enough already!; the Trump circus in NYC; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Special Arraignment Edition); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

April 4, 2023: Why Fox can survive its mega-scandal; Bruce Springsteen’s rock ‘n’ roll revival; a new rock-chick-lit novel from Susanna Hoffs of the Bangles; and more.

April 1, 2023: Trump’s indictment is yet another stress-test for America; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

March 28, 2023: A Reagan bombshell reminds us of the GOP’s reliance on dirty tricks; elite bonding; Shrinking respects and breaks the sitcom formula; and more.

March 25, 2023: The real perversion in Trump’s porn-star-hush-money caper; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Possible Trump Indictment Edition); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

March 21, 2023: The Iraq War: a personal remembrance of dissent; Los Angeles Times columnist Jean Guerrero’s stunning investigative memoir; and more

March 18, 2023: Is anti-wokeness all the GOP has?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Mike Pence); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

March 15, 2023: A debate (of sorts) over the Columbia Journalism Review’s huge Trump-Russia fail; Iris DeMent sings out about our current troubles; and more.

March 7, 2023: I visit paradise (the Tucson Festival of Books); do we need the blood and guts of All Quiet on the Western Front?; and more.

Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.