Frank Langfitt’s article illustrates very well the value of flexibility in journalism: he started out wanting to write a story about Chinese Communist Party dissidents, and ended up uncovering an internationally renowned con man in the process. I was particularly struck by the approach the reporters took to changing course when their suspicions about the stories they were being told began to surface. The turning point was the email Gao allegedly received from the Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Service. I was impressed by the authors’ clear-sightedness in recognizing that something was wrong, and their insight into undertaking their own research to verify the stories they were being fed, especially given how much the story had already been picked up by other outlets without being verified. I appreciate similar illustrations of the role that journalists can play in seeking the truth and not simply reporting what has been said. The authors of this article used their critical thinking and pursued their vocation of objectivity and integrity to investigate, ultimately producing a story that might have gone against their subjective interests, namely, to scrutinize the Chinese government.

This anecdote about how the media picked up the story of the bomb threats when they had not been verified echoes what we read last week when we talked about the value of open source investigations. Time and time again, we have seen how the media can fall victim to its own biases. In our collective consciousness on this side of the world, China is constructed as a country controlled by a very complex, deeply organized, and deeply intrusive state that orchestrates complex operations to suppress dissidents and target the United States. While some of the events that underlie this characterization may have merit, if this is the assumption with which we approach stories as journalists, errors like the one above can easily proliferate. We seek out stories that confirm our biases and are not motivated to investigate further stories that seem to confirm our preconceptions. Repeated over and over again, this lack of rigor can be counterproductive because it erodes trust in the journalism profession as a whole and we run the risk of falling into a post-truth society where we no longer know who to trust. Biases are humane, thus why it is important to design a rigorous system that allows us to maintain objectivity regardless of the subject matter.

I believe this distance is necessary for effective journalism. It is one of the greatest benefits of embedded journalism, because it gives a journalist the time and space to follow a story long enough to identify potential inconsistencies and investigate them thoroughly. This creates a lag that helps create a helpful contrast with the fast-paced environment of traditional journalism, which ends up being more vulnerable to misinformation and manipulation due to the expectations placed on journalists to cover the news quickly and to shock.

Finally, I enjoyed reading Goudeau’s article because she showed us the role of public perception and opinion in shaping the political landscape of refugee resettlement in the United States. The power of public relations campaigns cannot be underestimated, as it defines which groups receive assistance and which have a hard time making their demands heard.