For this week’s episode, “The Journalist and the Firefighter,” I talked to investigative reporter Barton Gellman about his decision to leave journalism after three decades. There was this one part of our interview that I tried to get into the story, because I thought it was illustrative about the way journalists think about facts and what’s knowable, and although it didn’t make the final cut, luckily I can share it with you here!

In September 2020, Barton wrote a story for The Atlantic called “The Election That Could Break America,” in which he reported on the ways Donald Trump and his allies could attempt to subvert the 2020 presidential election. Early in the story, Barton writes this premise (remember, this was a month and a half before Election Day):

Let us not hedge about one thing. Donald Trump may win or lose, but he will never concede. Not under any circumstance….If compelled in the end to vacate his office, Trump will insist from exile, as long as he draws breath, that the contest was rigged.

Then he goes on:

Maybe you hesitate. Is it a fact that if Trump loses, he will reject defeat, come what may? Do we know that? Technically, you feel obliged to point out, the proposition is framed in the future conditional, and prophecy is no man’s gift, and so forth. With all due respect, that is pettifoggery. We know this man. We cannot afford to pretend.

I remember reading this at the time and thinking, huh, that’s a cool move for an investigative journalist to try. To report a prediction about the future as fact. I respected it. But I did also have the reaction that he anticipated in that second paragraph. Like, you can’t know know this, can you?

In the story, Barton argued that he could know it, in the same way he could know other things he reported extensively on: based on evidence, including Trump’s own statements, previous behavior, and even his psychological profile. And he calls out conventional journalism and commentary for having “trouble facing the issue.” Facing the issue of a powerful political figure promising to do bad things, showing strong indications that he will do bad things, but those things not having happened just yet.

I wanted to know more about Barton’s thinking about this paragraph – though really it’s the premise of that entire cover story. And I was also curious if there was debate about it internally at The Atlantic. Because I know there’d have been debate about this at the shops I’ve worked at. Here’s what he told me: 

You can find a transcript of this clip here.

Of course, Barton’s prediction/reporting about this was right. Trump has continued to insist from exile that the 2020 election was rigged, and four years later we are continuing to deal with the poisonous effects of that lie on our democratic systems. I did ask him, if he’d been wrong – if Trump had (imagine this) demurely left the presidency and offered his curt support for President Biden from afar – would that have made his story bad journalism?

“I guess so,” he told me. “If he had conceded defeat, I would have written a long story about how wrong I’d been and how glad I was that I was wrong.”

What do you think of this move Barton experimented with? Is it shrewd? Is it journalistically sound? Do you think it had an impact? Let me know. You can reply to this email, or hit us up on our various social accounts, linked below.

A reminder: this show comes out every other Thursday. Which means we’ll be back with a new episode on Thursday, October 10th. (I’m just realizing that’s my wedding anniversary. Love you hon!) 

Brian