How the conventions of political journalism help spread Trump’s lies

The report from the Department of Justice’s inspector general on the handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation finds that the FBI’s decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton was untainted by bias or politics. This lays waste to one of the most important narratives pushed by President Dionald Trump and his allies in the quest to undermine special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation by claiming law enforcement is riddled with anti-Trump corruption. But in many accounts about the report, you find versions of this additional claim: The IG report nonetheless provides fodder and ammunition to President Trump and his allies to discredit Mueller’s probe. Many news accounts inadvertently grant these arguments credibility, not just by quoting them, but also by claiming as fact that the conduct in question actually does lend support to those arguments. It showcases a convention often relied upon in political journalism — the use of the “lends fodder” formulation to float false claims alongside true ones — that has to go.