For a reporter, not much is better than a scoop—and not much is worse than being scooped. This week, my colleagues at Mother Jones and I were scooped. But the tale of what happened may be somewhat enlightening for those outside the newsroom as to how we do our jobs.

You probably heard about the story we failed to get: Longtime Trump adviser Corey Lewandowski was accused by a Trump donor of making an unwanted and aggressive sexual advance. After this news broke, he was removed from his position overseeing the main Trump super PAC. In Trump World, the fall of Lewandowski is a big deal. He was a major player in this cosmos and recently was advising South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, a potential 2024 GOP presidential candidate. But following the revelation, Noem’s office announced Lewandowski would no longer be advising her on anything, and, in a tweet, Noem denounced an unsubstantiated report that she and Lewandowski, who are each married, were having a fling. It’s been one big mess—and a juicy story.

On Tuesday afternoon—before any of this became public—Dan Friedman, a kickass reporter in the Mother Jones Washington, DC, bureau received a tip: On Sunday night, Lewandowski allegedly sexually harassed a GOP donor's wife at a dinner before a big conservative charity event in Las Vegas. He was told the donor’s name—Trashelle Odom—and that Lewandowski had inappropriately touched her while crudely propositioning her and boasting about a particular part of his anatomy. Friedman’s informant also noted that Lewandowski had bragged that he was the second-most powerful man after Donald Trump. This tip, as we would come to learn, was on the money.

Friedman jumped on the story and quickly located someone who had attended this dinner. The person confirmed the basic outlines of the account provided by the tipster. This source, a GOP operative, acknowledged having witnessed the encounter—but only in a general sense. The source had spotted Lewandowski talking to Odom, and it had seemed an awkward interaction. Lewandowski was leaning in far too close to Odom, and Odom appeared discomfited. The source, who was across the room from them, did not notice any improper physical contact and couldn’t hear what was being said. But shortly afterward, the source had been informed about what had occurred, and this description matched what Friedman had been told by the original source

This was substantiation that an exchange between Lewandowski and Odom had transpired. But it was not enough for us to run with the story. The source in the room would not reveal who had provided the details of the encounter. Friedman suspected it had been Odom herself. If that was the case, we would have been in a position closer to publishing. But it was possible that a bad and inaccurate rumor was flying about.

I know there are many people who believe reporters are craven sensationalists with little regard for truth and consequences. But we were bound by our foundational belief in fairness and accuracy. We were not going to rush out a story of this sort, which could cause great damage to Lewandowski and perhaps others. Even a political thug like Lewandowski—who has a history of alleged improper conduct—deserves fair treatment. And there was an element of self-interest involved. We certainly did not want to damage our own reputation by reporting a sure-to-go-viral story that was wrong. In journalism, being tarred for committing a mistake is a powerful disincentive.

As reporters and editors gathered in a Slack chat to discuss the matter, one helpfully posted a 2017 Washington Post story about a rightwing outfit trying to con that newspaper into falsely reporting a sex story about Roy Moore, a Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama. I was pretty sure this Lewandowski allegation was not a set-up. But when pursuing a hot-shit story, it is always good to keep that possibility in mind—as well as the larger question: what might we be getting wrong here?

Friedman and the rest of us sprung into action. We reached out to sources who may have heard about the incident. I texted one Republican operative who has worked closely with Trump and asked if he was aware of an “incident in Las Vegas recently with Corey.” He responded within moments: “Haven’t head. What is it?!?!?” I tried another Republican with a Trump White House connection. No dice.

We started looking for other sources. Scouring social media accounts, we were able to determine that Odom and her husband were indeed Trump fans and likely to be at such an event. We also discovered they were keen on Noem, and Friedman had been told that Noem was at the event. We searched for information confirming Noem was in Las Vegas that evening. Meanwhile, an anonymous Twitter account popped up under the name USofAPatriot1—with a bio reading, “Single Mom, Conservative, Trump Supporter”—and it addressed a question to Noem: “Do you, ‘strong woman’, defend the sexual harassment behavior of your very own Corey L in Las Vegas last night?”

Was the person behind this Twitter account a source with direct information? Or someone just spreading the buzz? We learned of another Trump operative who may have been at the event. This was someone whom I thought would probably not return my call, given several heated arguments we’ve had during the Trump years. Someone else in the bureau tried to reach him—to no avail.

We searched for contact information for Odom and her husband, and Friedman sent them gently worded messages. He also left messages for Lewandowski. Not surprisingly, he didn’t hear back. We contacted the Las Vegas police department to see if any report had been filed. Nothing yet.

Throughout this mad dash for more information, we kept discussing whether we had enough to publish a story. Could we say there was an incident involving Lewandowski and a donor without fully describing it? Could we report that Trump World was in a flutter over allegations regarding an interaction between Lewandowski and a woman? Or that some people, as we were told, were encouraging Odom to file a criminal complaint? We certainly didn’t want to name her without confirmation.

We needed more. Friedman texted his source who had witnessed the exchange from afar to ask if it had been Odom who had shared what had happened. No word. And now another source was saying that the Odoms had hired a lawyer, that Odom’s husband was demanding Lewandowski be fired, that folks throughout the higher regions of the Trump cosmos were freaking out, and that Lewandowski was despondent. But we couldn’t tell if this was firsthand information or scuttlebutt. This source would not go on the record. And we learned that other reporters were on the trail.

Friedman worked late into the evening on Tuesday, but we all went to bed without having nailed this beast. In the morning, we resumed digging—though distracted for a bit by that report of a Lewandowski-Noem extramarital affair. Our colleague Russ Choma found photographs of the charity event in Las Vegas and hoped those could lead to other potential sources. One showed that Noem had indeed been there. Maybe, I thought, we’re getting closer. We just needed another source who had direct knowledge of the incident.

About noon, Politico broke the story. Damn. The Odoms and their lawyer had provided its reporter statements regarding the encounter between Lewandowski and Odom. “He repeatedly touched me inappropriately, said vile and disgusting things to me, stalked me, and made me feel violated and fearful,” Odom alleged. “I am coming forward because he needs to be held accountable. I am blessed to have a loving husband and family behind me. I want other women to know that you can be heard, too, and together we can stop terrible things like this from happening.” In his own statement, her husband said, “We are exploring our legal options at this time to make sure [Lewandowski] cannot harm anyone else.” Lewandowski’s attorney replied, “Accusations and rumors appear to be morphing by the minute and we will not dignify them with a further response.”

We had lost the race. But it was clear that other outlets had made the same decision: Don’t publish until there is more confirmation. And Politico had not posted its article until it had obtained the statements from the Odoms. With those, there was no question this was solid and reportable news.

So it goes. At Mother Jones, as in most newsrooms, we spend a lot of time chasing stories we do not catch. It could be that the story isn’t there. Or that we just can’t gather enough usable proof. That’s part of this business. In sales, you make a lot of calls before you hook a customer. In baseball, you miss the ball more than you hit it. But as is often the case, good reporting has its own benefits. In the course of this compact investigation, we did unearth a few tantalizing leads on other good stories. I can’t yet say what they are, but…stay tuned.

Got a comment about this story…or anything else? Other tips or leads? Or a question for me? Email me at thisland@motherjones.com.

Dumbass Comment of the Week

Every word Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) utters these days receives intense media scrutiny because he has the power to blow up President Joe Biden’s agenda in the 50-50 Senate. If he doesn’t say yes to the $3.5 trillion human infrastructure package the president is endeavoring to pass, then it is kaput. So it struck me as odd when one part of the statement he made on Thursday about this measure slipped by. Speaking to a pack of reporters at the Capitol, Manchin remarked, “My top line has been $1.5 [trillion] because I believe in my heart that what we can do and what the needs we have right now and what we can afford to do, without basically changing our whole society to an entitlement mentality." Of course, the big news was his declaration of this drop-dead number for the size of the bill (over 10 years). Bloomberg’s headline read, “Manchin Wants Biden Social Spending Plan Cut to $1.5 Trillion.” But its story didn’t include the second half of his statement: Manchin contending that anything more than $1.5 trillion would switch “our whole society to an entitlement mentality.”

In a way, this was Manchin’s version of Mitt Romney’s infamous 47 percent remark—a story I know a little bit about. He was not as direct as Romney, who had essentially called half of America freeloaders unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. In this instance, Manchin was saying that the entire country was heading toward an “entitlement mentality,” meaning a situation in which many, if not most, Americans will be looking for government assistance rather than working hard for themselves and their families. The reporters surrounding him did not ask Manchin to explain his basis for this observation. But it’s fair to wonder what provisions in the bill Manchin views as the path to societal sloth. Is it the two years of free community college and additional Pell grants for education? (Those measures will cause more young adults to spend more time hitting the books.) Or child care and universal pre-K? (That will allow more parents to work and keep young’uns from just lazing about at home.) Medicare expansion for vision, dental, and hearing services? (That could keep more older folks in the workforce.) Enhanced child tax credit? (I doubt lifting kids out of poverty causes indolence.) Cutting prescription drug prices? (Healthier people need less sick leave and can spend more time on the job.) Paid family and medical leave? (Those benefits tend to boost workplace productivity.) And the extensive climate change provisions of the bill are aimed at stabilizing the natural order—which would be good for business and, uh, humanity.

So why is Manchin, who represents a state with the sixth worst poverty rate in the nation, talking about an “entitlement mentality”? This is the sort of fancy-sounding pablum conservatives routinely deploy to disparage government action as nothing but a handout for the lazy. That is, it’s nothing but lazy rhetoric.

Got a nomination for Dumbass Comment of the Week? Email me at thisland@motherjones.com.

MoxieCam™

“Is summer really over?” Moxie asked me. “How long until we can go back to the beach?” I replied, “About eight months.” “Okay,” she said and paused. “What’s a month?”

Read Previous Issues of This Land

September 28, 2021: Note to Greta Van Susteren: The road to hell is paved with both-siderism; the value of Netflix’s Worth; a crazy CIA story; and more.

September 25, 2021: What do Common, Leonard Bernstein, and Dwight Eisenhower have in common?; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

September 21, 2021: The Trump-Russia scandal denialists are taking another desperate stab at gaslighting you; Netflix’s The Chair nails the assignment; and more.

September 18, 2021: Hey Marco Rubio and Glenn Greenwald, this is the real problem with Milley, Trump, and nuclear weapons; Dumbass Comment of the Week (did Barack Obama really kill rock ’n’ roll with racial politics?); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™ (a new toy!); and more.

September 14, 2021: Will the new Bill-and-Monica television series spur a reappraisal of the Clinton scandal?; a stunning new Holocaust movie you can’t see—yet; one of the best articles ever about a family and its dog; and more.

September 11, 2021: How Trump’s conspiracy theories are killing people in West Virginia and elsewhere; more 9/11 reflections; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Special Confederacy Edition); a look at HBO’s very odd White Lotus; MoxieCam™; and more.

September 8, 2021: 9/11 plus 20: a remembrance and a thank-you; the chilling climate crisis warning in HBO’s Reminiscence; and more.

September 3, 2021: Texas shows how Trumpism has become fascistic vigilantism; Dumbass Comment of the Week; Rock ’n’ Roll Flashback (how I was popped by Iggy Pop); MoxieCam™; and more.

August 31, 2021: How a 1954 analysis perfectly explains today’s Republican Party; on his new album, James McMurtry captures the spirit of Warren Zevon; and more.

August 20, 2021: Yes, there are laws Trump may have broken while trying to overturn the election; Dumbass Comment of the Week (special Afghanistan edition); the Mailbag (should we report on Trump’s inane remarks?); MoxieCam™; and more.

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