Attacks on Jeffrey Goldberg remind us of the dark times that lie ahead for journalism.

By Will Raven

Jeffrey Goldberg, seen here in 2024, is at the heart of the "Signalgate" story. Photograph: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

When Jeffrey Goldberg received an innocuous ‘friend request’ from Mike Walz, the current United States national security advisor, he could hardly have expected that within the next 24 hours he would be plunged into the depths of “Signalgate”. The group chat he would soon be added to contained many senior members of the Trump administration, most notably the Vice-President J.D. Vance and the Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, who were discussing among other things the ongoing US bombing campaign in Yemen. This egregious lapse in the handling of classified state secrets is one thing in itself and much has been made of senior cabinet officials using easily ‘hackable’ messaging platforms, such as Signal,  to communicate with each other. The use of emojis has particularly offended some, with the seemingly light-hearted way in which the 'president's men' planned devastating bombing runs, over 7,000 miles away, revealing an alarming disregard for human lives and world peace. The findings in the group chat struck hardest in Europe with J.D. Vance, now famed for his deeply anti-European Munich speech, and Pete Hegseth both sharing their “loathing” of Europe and its supposed “free-loading”. Again, given this, it should come as no surprise that the effects of “Tariff Day” on the 2nd of April will be felt most acutely by Europeans. Under this administration, and their “America First” strategy, the line between friend and foe is becoming hazier by the day. 

when you can’t discredit the story you discredit the storyteller

The bombshell findings within the “Signalgate” group chat could go on and on but instead I would rather focus on two specific elements. Not whether war plans were discussed, although it is amusing to watch Republicans from both Houses of Congress turn themselves inside out while attempting to explain how this did not breach the Defence Secrets Act. My favourite line so far is that this group chat should be viewed positively as it is in fact yet another “great example of transparency under the Trump Administration”, intended to allow the everyday man to witness the inner workings of government.  The first element, I would like to focus on, is that the revelation of the group chat can reveal much about the future of journalism. For Jeffrey Goldberg this story landed, quite literally, in his lap. The facts of the story may seem farcical, however, they are truly undeniable and in fact no member of the GOP has, of yet, attempted to argue with this. With this context you would imagine that as a story, this is a pretty much open net. A free shot at the administration. 

The implications of this particular battle between Goldberg and the Trump Administration are far reaching and, as it is still ongoing, journalists everywhere should pay close attention to its outcome.    

In reality, however, much of the narrative has been to do with Jeffrey Goldberg with personal attacks directed towards him, his past work and his magazine from across the MAGA world. So far he has been called a “loser” and a “sleazebag” by the President Donald Trump with whom he has had a particularly turbulent relationship. In 2020, just a month before the Presidential election, Goldberg released a story dating back to 2018 when Trump was forced to cancel a trip to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, near Paris, because of the weather. To this news Trump supposedly replied that he wasn’t bothered as the cemetery was “filled with losers” and “suckers”. Given Trump’s comments about Sen. John McCain, when he called him another “loser” mocking the former GOP nominee for having been a prisoner of war in Vietnam, this story from 2018 hardly came as a surprise. These personal attacks directed toward Goldberg signal something of a changing role for journalists. No longer can they simply be observers or commentators but rather now they are thrust into the heart of the action. In an age of growing strong man leadership it is imperative for journalists to stand by their convictions and hold fast in the face of personal attacks. Growing mistrust means journalism has to prove itself to be believed, and rightly so, but undoubtably it requires strength to take a stand with the certain knowledge of the retribution that shall inevitably be directed your way. Goldberg, and The Atlantic have demonstrated this strength and they should rightly be commended for it. 

Personally, I have my own suspicions about the story and the likely claim being made by Mike Walz that adding a senior journalist, who specialises in foreign policy, to a group chat on foreign policy, was entirely an accident. In an interview with the BBC’s Americast Goldberg was incredibly vague about his relationship with Walz and how they came to be in each other’s phone contacts. Walz, who is less ideologically MAGA than the vast majority of this administration, could well be looking for a way out. Equally, as a staunchly hawkish policymaker, it is not unreasonable to suggest that perhaps Walz is uncomfortable with the way in which the United-States seems to be currently shedding its allies and cosying up to the likes of Russia. The choice of Goldberg is also interesting, a known “Trump-hater”, who in the past has, as demonstrated by the Aisne-Marne story, preferred to sit on a story saving it until a moment of grave political importance and for this reason he was a preferable contact for Walz as he may have hoped the story may be saved until later, when he would’ve been in the clear. While interesting to consider, all of this is conjecture and as of yet nothing has been proved. This brings me to my second point, that, like my ramblings, the manner in which Goldberg has been attacked confirms a new dimension to the “post truth” era in which we live. When faced with certain facts and evidence from the group chat, the conversation was shifted to attack the ‘truth teller’ in an attempt to effectively discredit the truth. This will undoubtably affect journalists for years to come, and a theme is likely to emerge so that 'when you can’t discredit the story you discredit the storyteller'. The implications of this particular battle between Goldberg and the Trump Administration are far reaching and, as it is still ongoing, journalists everywhere should pay close attention to its outcome.    

Photograph: Getty Images