Atlantic group chat article

The Atlantic group chat article is journalistic malpractice

SFGATE columnist Drew Magary would have never left the chat

By Drew Magary

It’s not surprising that key members of Donald Trump’s administration would decide to sketch out bombing plans via group chat. It’s not surprising that they would use a third-party platform (Signal) to hold this chat, bypassing 100% secure internal platforms that already exist. It’s also not surprising that a group of people this bad at their respective jobs would somehow accidentally tag in the editor of the f—king Atlantic to that chat, allowing a major press outlet to eavesdrop on their planning and then report on it. You and I have been dealing with Trumpism for a decade now. We know these people don’t give a s—t.

But let’s talk about the man who broke this story, because I’m not terribly certain he gives a s—t, either.

The man in question is Jeffrey Goldberg, who is editor-in-chief of the Atlantic and who broke the news under his own byline on Monday. Goldberg’s report was damning, enough so that Democrats on the Hill are actually, honest to God calling for heads in the wake of it after Republicans did their whole “lie about it and then blame the woke media” routine to escape any further scrutiny (UPDATE: Now they’re REALLY shooting the messenger, and it’s some truly awful stuff). Goldberg found himself included in the chat, vetted it closely to make sure it was the real thing and knew immediately that this was a major story.

And then, of his own accord, he LEFT that chat:

“The Signal chat group, I concluded, was almost certainly real. Having come to this realization, one that seemed nearly impossible only hours before, I removed myself from the Signal group, understanding that this would trigger an automatic notification to the group’s creator, ‘Michael Waltz,’ that I had left. No one in the chat had seemed to notice that I was there. And I received no subsequent questions about why I left—or, more to the point, who I was.”

Well, THIS columnist has questions about why you left, Jeffrey! None of those questions are about who you are, because I know all about that. I know that you’ve been editor-in-chief of the Atlantic since 2016. I know that, prior to that, you worked at both Bloomberg and the New Yorker, the latter of which published a lengthy story by you in 2002 that the George W. Bush administration then used as now-discredited “proof” that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in cahoots with one another. That mistake helped directly lead to Bush’s disastrous invasion of Iraq. I know that, in your current position, you let overtly false claims about measles go unchallenged, portrayed Meta’s large-scale intellectual property theft as “an ethical question,” and platformed ultra-Zionist writers who believe there’s a viable argument for the Trump administration outright kidnapping pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil. There’s no “but” to be had in the case of this man’s detention, Jeffrey. You know that. You know it’s a race-motivated purge of dissidents. You yourself called Trump a “racist” back when other major outlets were too chickens—t to do so. So here’s a clear manifestation of that racism, and you let one of your writers leave wiggle room for debate about it. That’s garbage.

I know about all of that garbage, Jeffrey Goldberg. That’s why I wasn’t surprised that, when handed the story of the year on a silver platter, you were like OH NO NO NO I’D HATE TO LEARN ANY MORE ABOUT THIS STORY THAN WHAT I ALREADY KNOW. You left key details of the Signal chat out of your published story, because they included information that could have compromised American military personnel, among others. I have no objection to that decision. I would have done the same thing.

But I would NOT have left that chat a second before I had to. None of the puds in that chat realized you were there. Who the hell knows what else they were going to say after their little bomb party planning sesh was all wrapped up. So why did you bail? Well, here’s what you told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins when she asked you that question Monday night. Emphasis mine below:

Goldberg: “I removed myself, and I started writing this story in order to expose the security breach.”

Collins: “Some White House reporters today are saying, maybe I would have never removed myself from that [chat].”

Goldberg: “You know, these are tough questions. But I can’t go into it, all of the decision-making involved in this. But I found out what I needed to find out.”

Excuse me? You found out what you needed to find out? What the F—K kind of journalist are you, Jeffrey? Is this something they taught you at J-school? Just peace out on a story when you’re like, “OK, I’m good”? I’m a journalist. I’ve wanted to end my legwork on a story early because I’m tired, or because I’ve felt like I've gotten enough material to work with. But every time I’ve pushed past that fatigue to spend a few more hours out in the field or talk to a few more people, I’ve been grateful for it. Every single journalist I know feels the same way. If you sense there’s more to the story, you pursue it. It’s not a tough question to ask yourself.

You didn’t ask it. You knew you had to publish what you already had right away, but you just bore witness, firsthand, to the outrageously sloppy methods of this administration. You knew they’d keep on talking, because they didn’t really care who heard them. You even said that no one in that chat — which included Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — noticed you had left it. SO WHY THE F—K DID YOU LEAVE TO BEGIN WITH? Because you felt it was rude to listen in? Or just because you’re safe atop your perch and don’t need to risk any more than you’ve already risked?

I bet it’s that last one. I KNOW it is. You know why? Because, again, you said so yourself. “I found out what I needed to find out.” What about the rest of us, Jeffrey? Did you find out what WE needed you to find out? I can answer that, too: No. You needed only what YOU needed, and not what the rest of us needed. That makes you as gutless as the New York Times, the Washington Post and every other outlet that prizes its own reputation more than informing its readership, dishing out the bare minimum of vital news to keep that reputation intact. So here’s another unencrypted message for you, Jeffrey: You f—king suck at your job.