The release of the FBI letter reopening the Clinton email investigation sent journalists scrambling over the weekend for how to respond. They had to write something just because their competitors would.
The problem is that the letter was a totally substance-free announcement without explanation. It provided virtually nothing to write about, and yet something would have to be written. It’s situations like this that lead to speculation and innuendo… two disruptive communication poisons.
I appreciate the dilemma because I remember when journalists would call me for a statement about a situation I knew had no substance. But I would still often hear: “My editor is pushing me and I have to write something!”
The problem is that under competitive pressure when there is no substance reporters are likely to revert to speculation. “What it could be is…” “It might be nothing, but then if it is…” “If it turns out there is something she likely will go to prison.” That’s pure poison.
Under pressure to respond, campaigns are likely to revert to persuasive innuendo. Trump will be saying something like: “You just know the FBI has something.”
And betting the FBI would have released anything it could, Clinton will be saying something like: “I think the FBI should release whatever it has.”
As a voter you no doubt are already leaning in one direction or the other. So you nod in the direction of your preferred innuendo: “Yea, I bet you’re right!” And if you are still undecided, speculation and innuendo are certain pathways to disillusionment.
The fact is that “no story at all” becomes any story you want it to be. That is why speculation and innuendo are poisons. This campaign has been full of both… “journalism noise” on the one hand, and “smoke and mirrors” on the other.
Larry D. Lauer 
Leave a Reply