NBC News reported last night that a federal probe has found no evidence that Gov. Chris Christie knew anything in advance about the closure in 2013 of the local lanes connecting with the George Washington Bridge.
The governor responded last night on 101.5 by saying he was unsurprised. Earlier in the day, he called for an end to the Legislative investigation, which he called a partisan witch hunt. The report, he essentially says, is a vindication. Time to move on.
Perhaps, but let’s step back a bit and review what NBC actually reported.
The U.S. Justice Department investigation into Gov. Chris Christie’s role in the George Washington Bridge lane closure scandal has thus far uncovered no evidence indicating that he either knew in advance or directed the closure of traffic lanes on the span, federal officials tell NBC 4 New York.
The September 2013 closures — where several entrance lanes to the George Washington Bridge in Fort Lee were shut down, causing a traffic nightmare for commuters — has been the subject of several federal and state investigations.
Federal officials caution that the investigation that began nine months ago is ongoing and that no final determination has been made, but say that authorities haven’t uncovered anything that indicates that Christie knew in advance or ordered the closure of traffic lanes.
Two things should be immediately apparent.
1. The sources for this report are anonymous and there is no indication that they can be verified independently.
2. These unnamed federal officials are careful to couch their terms — nothing has been found “thus far” and the investigation “is ongoing and … no final determination has been made.”
I’m not questioning the report’s accuracy, only its sourcing and presentation, which is far more definitive than the reporting seems to indicate.
This is especially true given that the U.S. attorney’s office offered this curt comment to NJ.com:
“The investigation is not over,” said Rebekah Carmichael, a spokeswoman for New Jersey U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman.
But my post is not really about Christie or the bridge scandal. My issue here is with NBC’s use of unnamed sources, a practice that remains widespread among journalists and often results in a distortion of the news and a commandeering of the political news cycle. Implying that the governor has been cleared — which may turn out to be true — could affect the way the story is reported going forward and, in turn, affect public opinion. It may have an impact on the presidential race, on state-level investigations and other matters.
All of this would be acceptable we’re the information being provided to the public was more definitive. That is the trade-off we make. At this point, however, all we are tossing into the public space is speculation.
Hank Kalet 