The Atlantic (Left bias) published detailed plans about previous US military operations in the Middle East this week after head editor Jeffrey Goldberg mistakenly received them via Signal chat. The leak and The Atlantic’s subsequent reporting sparked a discussion among AllSides team members about the outlet’s handling of the information. 

Edited for brevity.

Henry A. Brechter, Editor-in-chief, Center bias

Are there any concerns about how the Atlantic’s editor reported this information? What role does/should the media play here?

Evan Wagner, Product Manager, Lean Left

Are you kidding? It would be malpractice not to report it.

Krystal Woodworth, Marketing Communications Manager, Lean Left

This mistake shouldn’t have happened, and it was right of The Atlantic to report it. In the back of my mind though, I am thinking about this in the context of the current administration and I wonder: Would The Atlantic have reported on this had it been the Obama Administration’s mistake, or would it have been handled privately? I like a “watchdog media” – I just hope they don’t go back to sleep the next time an establishment candidate is back in office. 

Evan 

The Atlantic reached out to the Trump team first (and received an indignant response), so they didn’t blindside the admin or anything…

 Olivia Geno, News & Bias Assistant, Lean Right 

As Evan said, The Atlantic reportedly gave the Trump administration a chance to respond. But when officials failed to address it, what choice was left? This was a serious OPSEC failure, and keeping it a secret would’ve been irresponsible. In the wrong hands, this information could’ve endangered national security and the safety of our troops overseas. 

Journalists shouldn’t be expected to withhold critical information out of fear of retaliation, especially when the government fails to be transparent and take accountability. Americans have the right to know when government actions may compromise safety. Whether it’s Hillary Clinton’s emails, Hunter Biden’s laptop, or classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, national security isn’t a partisan issue – and accountability shouldn’t be either. 

Furthermore, this wasn’t some unforeseen vulnerability. The NSA and the Pentagon had recently warned about foreign actors, including Russian hackers, targeting Signal. Knowing that, officials should’ve exercised far greater caution when discussing war plans on the platform. The fact that an unauthorized individual was accidentally added to a chat discussing sensitive information shows a reckless and concerning disregard for operational security — intent doesn’t erase consequence.

Henry

I understood Goldberg’s position more before he published the full contents of the chats. In my mind, I don’t see the value of that beyond trying to shield himself from critics who doubted his reporting.

Evan

The administration said it hadn’t been worthy of being classified, so Goldberg published the exact information to remove all doubt that it certainly was worthy of being classified. When you look at Hegseth’s message detailing to-the-minute launch and strike times for the operation, you don’t have to be an expert in secure communications to see that the Houthis could have used it to avoid the bombings, or even attack the American planes.

If the Atlantic hadn’t revealed the exact info, I doubt Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) would be planning an investigation of the Trump administration right now. This is how good journalists subject elected officials to scrutiny. If you have hard evidence that an important person has told a consequential lie, you have a duty to report it.

One could argue classified information is an extenuating circumstance that overrides journalistic principles. But the operation was over — and agree with Olivia that, in terms of the national security impact, is it not worse to allow the administration to continue being reckless?