Last night, Twitter was abuzz with a Rolling Stone article that claims former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was involved in the planning of the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Given Meadows’ history, that seems plausible. He’s a none-too-bright Trumpist with anti-democratic leanings who spread the Big Lie. He’s also a hypocrite, but that’s beside the point.  

I was ready to believe everything the Twitter warriors were saying. Then, I read the story. This morning, I read it again. The whole article cites one person, whose role I could never clearly discern, as a source for the claim. Maybe it’s true and I hope the January 6 Committee gets to the bottom of it, but the article should not have been published without somebody, anybody, corroborating the guy’s claims. 

According to the article, Scott Johnston says that he overheard a conversation between Meadows, Trump campaign staffer Katrina Pierson, and Women for America First executive director Kylie Kremer. He claims that they discussed the rally and a planned march on the Capitol. Meadows initially suggested getting a permit for it, but they decided instead to encourage the marchers to go to the Capitol after the rally at the Ellipse to make it look spontaneous. It certainly sounds possible considering Meadows’ motivations and lack of character. 

The problem, though, is credibility. Johnston is described vaguely as someone “who worked on the team that helped plan the Ellipse rally.” A Google search turns up only a reference to him helping organize the bus tour with Kremer. Everyone else who could verify the call denies it happened. The entire story is built around one guy’s accusations and we don’t know anything about him. 

This type of journalism lends credibility to the right’s attacks on the mainstream media. The reporter, Hunter Walker, has done good work over the years and may have the goods on Meadows, but this story doesn’t prove it. Rolling Stone, for its part, should not be running such explosive accusations with such thin evidence. 

If we’re going to be asked to believe Scott Johnston, we need to know a lot more about him. If we’re not going to be told why he is credible, then we need some strong corroboration. This story offers neither, yet it’s all over the internet. Without more, the article is little more than a rumor started by some staffer and spread by a national publication.

Right now, we need more sources of news that we can trust. Rolling Stone has produced some great political journalism in recent years, but this piece falls way short. If we’re going to combat the disinformation on the right, media outlets should be tightening their standards instead of loosening them. With this story, Rolling Stone is providing the same type of confirmation bias as Fox News and OAN. I hope they move away from spreading rumors and get back to strict journalism. The times demand it.