Staff Reports
Judy Woodruff, a long-time PBS correspondent, has once again demonstrated that navigating the murky waters of political reporting is no easy task, especially when it comes to discussing former President Donald Trump. In what can only be described as a classic case of “whoops, I did it again,” Woodruff recently found herself retracting comments she made at a live event, where she alleged that Trump was conspiring to prolong the conflict between Israel and Hamas for his own electoral gain. One has to wonder if Woodruff missed the memo on how to properly fact-check before going live.
During a panel discussion at the Democratic National Convention, Woodruff boldly claimed that Trump was pressuring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avoid a cease-fire deal because it would supposedly offer political cover for Kamala Harris’s campaign. The absurdity of linking a Middle East conflict to U.S. electoral strategy is almost laughable, but it gets better. It turns out her evidence for this claim was as thin as the ratings for Progressive talk shows. After being called out for her loose reporting—one might call it “fake news”—Woodruff backtracked, attempting to clarify that she simply misjudged the facts based on articles in Axios and Reuters.
I want to clarify my remarks on the PBS News special on Monday night about the ongoing cease fire talks in the Middle East. As I said, this was not based on my original reporting; I was referring to reports I had read, in Axios and Reuters, about former President Trump having…
— Judy Woodruff (@JudyWoodruff) August 21, 2024
In a stunning twist worthy of a dramatic sitcom, Woodruff decided to reveal her “clarification” on social media rather than on-air. This timing raises eyebrows; perhaps she thought a casual afternoon post on X was the best way to avoid a mainstream media firestorm. Her explanation depicted a scenario of naïvety, where she seemingly rushed to repeat a questionable story without fully grasping the fallout or having done her due diligence. It’s amusing to consider that a journalist with decades of experience could so easily fall prey to sensational reporting—right before a national audience, no less.
The response from Netanyahu’s office was swift and unforgiving, branding Woodruff’s claims as a “complete lie.” This reaction highlighted just how far off the mark her assertions were—so much so that even media sources typically friendly to her side of the political aisle had to step back and take notice. The rabbit hole of misinformation Woodruff tumbled down is a clear reminder that in today’s hyper-political environment, the stakes are high. However, her fact-checking misstep begs the question of whether reporters at mainstream outlets consider the repercussions of their claims, especially when playing with the seriousness of international conflict.
While Trump continues to maintain that he encourages Netanyahu to pursue equitable solutions and end the bloodshed, the media’s obsession with crafting narratives that paint him as a villain remains persistent. Woodruff’s experience is a cautionary tale for those in journalism: if you’re going to throw accusations like confetti at a political rally, make sure the confetti is of a sturdier quality. Otherwise, the audience might just end up laughing—and they won’t be laughing with you.
