Sign up for the daily CJR newsletter.

Some grumpy editor—and I’m sorry that I don’t remember who, so lots of people can take credit—once said to me, “Don’t just tell readers what you know, tell ’em what you don’t know.”

This cuts against the grain for a lot of us, who believe that our stories will look more authoritative if we state whatever facts we’ve gathered, then ignore the gaps in our stories, or hope that the thin layer of asphalt we pour over the potholes will fool readers. 

Fortunately, Reuters’s newsroom is in the Grumpy Editor Camp, and you could see how this played out in Tuesday’s scoop that showed how Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a halt to eleven Ukraine-bound flights filled with weapons—without bothering to give a heads-up to President Trump or sober-minded national security advisers.

Reuters’s scoop relies upon multiple unnamed sources, and as often happens in complex pieces like this one, their stories don’t perfectly mesh, nor does any one account provide all the details you’d ideally want. So rather than moosh over those gaps, the Reuters team is clear about them. A few lightly edited highlights:

• “Reuters couldn’t establish exactly when Hegseth’s office ordered the freight flights canceled.”
• “It’s not clear if the 11 canceled flights were the only ones scheduled that week in February.”
• “Reuters couldn’t determine if Hegseth or his team knew how the order would play out.”
• Three sources “said Hegseth misinterpreted discussions with the president about Ukraine policy and aid shipments.… Four other people briefed on the situation said a small cadre of staffers inside the Pentagon…advised Hegseth to consider pausing aid.”
• “Two people familiar with the matter denied there was a true cutoff in aid. One of them described it as a logistical pause.”

I don’t mean to overdraw the point. The story is filled with compelling evidence to show how and when Hegseth went rogue.  

But this level of candor didn’t diminish the story’s credibility. It strengthened it. And this technique also deters the kinds of mistakes that can creep into copy when journalists try to gloss over the things they don’t know.

So, credit due to Erin Banco, Phil Stewart, Gram Slattery, and Mike Stone, who wrote the story, and Don Durfee and Lori Hinnant, who edited it.

For about six months, refugees from Hurricane Helene have lived at Haven on the Hill, a scattershot array of trailers, campers, and other temporary housing on a former cow pasture, not far from Asheville, North Carolina. 

This “haven” lacks dependable cell service, water, and electricity. Because the needs are so great, the people who run the place sponsored a GoFundMe that has raised more than 90 percent of its $125,000 goal. But, residents say, conditions remain dire.

The owner is “basically raising money off the misery of our people,” the county commission chairman told Will Hofmann, an Asheville Citizen-Times reporter. “To me, it’s really just a scam raising money off of Helene.”

Under the headline “Exploitation, discrimination allegations plague temporary Helene housing,” Hofmann and photographer Josh Bell meticulously detailed the woeful conditions these people are living in, with little hope for relief. 

But the Citizen-Times also depicted the fear that runs alongside the poverty. Two of the residents who spoke to Hofmann soon found themselves facing second-degree criminal trespassing charges filed by James Lunsford, founder of Haven on the Hill. One of them said that Lunsford told them: “You want to talk to the reporter, you can go live with him.” That comports with what Lunsford told the Citizen-Times: “If they start lying and stuff to reporters and social media, they’re asked to leave immediately.”

A couple of weeks ago, we wrote about independent journalist Tony Clark, who dug deep into the background of Trump’s surgeon general nominee, Janette Nesheiwat. He found that she had distorted multiple parts of her résumé and lacked the credentials we associate with one of the nation’s top medical officials.

Just as her hearings were about to begin this week, Bloomberg’s Madison Muller and Josh Wingrove reported that her nomination was pulled. It’s hard to see how that would’ve happened without Clark’s reporting, even as some mainstream news organizations were stingy with their credit.

Who doesn’t like a nice dollop of snark with their politics, especially if you’re watching The Daily Show or reading Andy Borowitz? But it seems off when it comes from a White House correspondent for the New York Times.

In a short piece without even so much as a “News Analysis” label, Shawn McCreesh couldn’t hold himself back when reporting on the president’s trade policy. Trump did give him plenty to work with when he said that while his tariffs might cause some toy shortages, “maybe the children will have two dolls instead of thirty dolls, you know? And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.”

That’s the kind of quote whose ridiculousness can stand firmly on its own. Calling it “a grinchy pronouncement,” or ending the piece with “You hear that, kids?” helped put the reporter, not just the president, in the center of the story.

Hat tip to Michael Thaddeus. If you have a suggestion for this column, please send it to laurelsanddarts@cjr.org. We can’t acknowledge all submissions, but we will mention you if we use your idea. For more on Laurels and Darts, please click here.

Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.