Dan Kennedy

My Northeastern ethics students offer some ideas on practicing journalism in the AI era

The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics encompasses four broad principles:

- Seek Truth and Report It
- Minimize Harm
- Act Independently
- Be Accountable and Transparent

Each principle is accompanied by multiple bullet points, which in turn link to background information. But those are the starting points, and I think they provide a good rough guide for how to practice ethical journalism.

Whenever I teach one of our ethics classes, I ask my students to come up with a fifth principle as well as some explanatory material. This semester, I’m teaching our graduate ethics seminar. It’s a small class — five grad students and one undergrad. Last week I divided them into three teams of two and put them to work. Here’s what they came up with. (Longtime readers of Media Nation will recognize this exercise.) I’ve done a little editing, mainly for parallel construction.

Practice Digital Diligence

Utilize AI for structural purposes such as transcribing interviews, searching for sources and entering data.
Disclose the use of AI software when publishing artificial creations.
Give credit by providing hyperlinks to other journalistic sources.
Gain verification status on social platforms for credibility purposes.
Do not engage with negative comments on social media posts.
Engage with subscribers who might use social media to ask questions about a story.
Apply AP style to social media posts.
Give credit to any artists whose work you might borrow. Respect copyright law.

Use Modern Resources Responsibly

Use social media and other digital tools, such as comment sections, to crowdsource information, connect with others and distribute news in a more accessible way.
Do not use these tools to engage in ragebait or to get tangled in messy and unproductive discourse online.
Acceptable uses of AI include gathering information, reformatting your reporting, transcribing interviews and similar non-public-facing tasks.
AI should be used more effectively to guide your reporting rather than replacing it.

Be Compassionate

Treat sources and communities with empathy and care.
Avoid misleading sources or providing false hope — for instance, don’t promise someone who is suffering that you’ll be able to give them assistance.
Do not exploit a source’s lack of media training. Provide a detailed explanation of your reporting methods when warranted.
Avoid using jargon both in interacting with sources and in producing a story.
Be a human first. If that clashes with your role as a journalist, that should be secondary.

***

In addition to their work on extending the Code of Ethics, I asked them on the first day of class to name one significant ethical issue that they think faces journalism. What follows is my attempt to summarize a longer conversation that we had in class.

► Stand up for our independence as journalists

► Explore and define the role of AI and truth in journalism

► Make sure we include a range of perspectives

► Push back against fake news, ragebait, etc.

► Avoid passive voice that evades responsibility

► Move beyond our preconceptions in pursuit of the truth

I hope you’ll agree that this is good, thought-provoking stuff. I can’t wait to see how the rest of the semester will go.

Follow my Bluesky newsfeed for additional news and commentary. And please join my Patreon for just $6 a month. You’ll receive a supporters-only newsletter every Thursday.

A New York Times video analysis shows that ICE agent Ross was neither run over nor struck

*Click on image to review the Times’ video analysis.*

I already posted this on social media, but I just want to make sure that Media Nation readers are able to take advantage of the gift link.

The New York Times has undertaken another video analysis of the killing of Renee Good at the hands of ICE agent Jonathan Ross. As you’ll see, it’s absolutely clear — as it was in earlier videos — that Good’s vehicle did not run over Ross (I mean, really?) and did not strike him. The most likely explanation was that she was trying, very slowly, to drive away, cutting her wheels away from Good and another agent.

It’s possible that Good’s vehicle brushed up against him, but that remains unclear. It appears that Ross slipped on the ice and braced himself by placing his hand on the roof of her vehicle. Oh, and there’s this: After the shooting, an ICE agent is heard describing Good as a “fucking bitch” as she, mortally wounded, careens down the street. The Times has determined that it was Ross himself who used those words to describe his victim.

Claims that Ross suffered internal bleeding are obviously a lie. You can see him casually strolling down the street after shooting Good four times. Federal authorities aren’t going to do anything, and they’re impeding an investigation by state and local officials.

By raiding a reporter’s home, Trump and his thugs have escalated their attacks on a free press

Barack Obama’s administration threatened reporters with jail if they refused to turn over their confidential sources. But he didn’t order raids on reporters’ homes. Photo (cc) 2024 by Gage Skidmore.

Back in 2012, I wrote an opinion piece for The Huffington Post (now just HuffPost) that I headlined “Obama’s War on Journalism.” The premise was that Barack Obama, like George W. Bush and other presidents before him, was disrespecting the First Amendment’s protection of independent journalism by taking reporters to court and theatening them with jail if they didn’t reveal the identities of White House sources leaking to them.

At least Obama, Bush et al. were following a legal process. As The Associated Press reports, Donald Trump’s FBI, headed by the buffoonish but dangerous Kash Patel, raided the home of a Washington Post journalist to grab what they claimed were classified documents provided by a Pentagon contractor.

Continue reading “By raiding a reporter’s home, Trump and his thugs have escalated their attacks on a free press”

Social, vertical and engaging: Mike Beaudet and Lisa Thalhamer map the future of local TV news

On the latest “What Works” podcast, Ellen Clegg and I talk with Mike Beaudet and Lisa Thalhamer. Mike is a colleague at Northeastern, where he is a journalism professor. He is also an investigative reporter at WCVB-TV, Boston’s ABC affiliate. He’s worked in local television news for more than 30 years. Before joining WCVB-TV he was an investigative reporter and anchor at WFXT-TV in Boston.

Beaudet, the head of Northeastern’s Reinventing Local TV News project, focuses on the future of local television news and finding new ways to grow the audience and engage younger viewers where they’re consuming content. Think social and vertical.

Lisa is a journalist and researcher. She’s currently editor-in-chief of The Scope, a hyperlocal publication based at Northeastern focused on issues of social justice, as well as an adjunct professor. Her research is geared toward improving the mental well-being of journalists, particularly those in local TV news, where she worked for more than 15 years as a producer.

*Mike Beaudet and Lisa Thalhamer. Photo (cc) 2026 by Dan Kennedy.*

While earning her master’s degree at Northeastern, Thalhamer was Reinvent’s Video Innovation Scholar, helping newsrooms evolve their video storytelling skills to fit the world of social media.

In keeping with the all-Northeastern theme of this podcast, we’re also joined by Greg Maynard, a student of mine last semester who has written a compelling story about what cord-cutting means for local cable access outlets. Greg is the founder and executive director of the nonprofit Boston Policy Institute.

Ellen has a Quick Take on the end of an era in Minneapolis. In December, the daily newspaper, The Minnesota Star Tribune, stopped printing copies at its giant brick plant in downtown Minneapolis. The Strib is printing at a Gannett plant in Des Moines, Iowa. That means earlier deadlines and 125 jobs lost.

I’ve got a wild story for my Quick Take. Last summer there was some sad news coming out of Claremont, New Hampshire: the Eagle Times, a star-crossed paper that had had its ups and downs going back to the 1940s, was closing its doors after its wealthy owner, Jay Lucas, failed to meet payroll. At the time, New Hampshire Public Radio ran a story on the shutdown that was harsher than you would have expected. But it turns out that there was a reason.

You can listen to our conversation here, or you can subscribe through your favorite podcast app.

New York Times editor says his paper did not hold back on reporting that the U.S. would attack Venezuela

Semafor reported on Jan. 3 that The New York Times and The Washington Post learned of the pending U.S. raid on Venezuela shortly before it began but held off reporting on it “to avoid endangering US troops.”

Now Times executive editor Joe Kahn says it’s not true, at least with regard to his paper. He chose an unusually low-key forum in which to push back — in a response to a reader question in The Morning Newsletter. Here’s the relevant part of his answer (sub. req.). The boldface is mine, not his.

We reported on U.S. missions targeting Venezuela, including boat strikes and preparation for land-based military action, in considerable detail for several months. Our Pentagon, national-security and intelligence-agency beat reporters talked repeatedly with their sources about heightened preparations for bolder action against the Venezuelan leadership. Contrary to some claims, however, The Times did not have verified details about the pending operation to capture Maduro or a story prepared, nor did we withhold publication at the request of the Trump administration….

While not relevant in this case, The Times does consult with the military when there are concerns that exposure of specific operational information could risk the lives of American troops. We take those concerns seriously, and have at times delayed publication or withheld details if they might lead to direct threats to members of the military. But in all such cases, we make our editorial decisions independently. And we have often published accountability and investigative stories about military and intelligence operations and national-security decision making that government officials pressed us to withhold.

Last week I wrote about the parallels between Venezuela and the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961, noting that the Times was accused of withholding key details. I cited research I did as a Boston University graduate student in the 1980s that showed the Times actually published what it knew and held back only on aspects of the story it couldn’t verify. The parallels between then and now may be even closer than I realized.

I don’t believe that the Post has responded to the Semafor story, which has not been corrected or amended.

There’s no mystery about what happened in the killing of Renee Good

ICE agents in South Minneapolis on Monday. Photo (cc) 2026 by Nicole Neri / Minnesota Reformer.

I posted this on Facebook earlier today, and it’s gotten a lot of interaction, with nearly 100 comments so far. Feel free to comment here, but if you’d like to join the conversation on Facebook, here’s the link.

I’ve seen a few people of good will argue that we should withhold judgment on ICE agent Jonathan Ross’ killing of Renee Good until the investigation is complete. I’m sorry, no. We know exactly what happened, from multiple angles. Every new video only makes Ross’ actions look more outrageous. And, of course, the feds are already impeding any legitimate investigation.

Public anger diminishes with every day that passes, and then we’re on to the next thing. (Invasion of Greenland, anyone?) There are no ambiguities. We know what happened. Ross should be arrested and charged with murder. Then there really will be an investigation, and we can let a jury of his peers decide his fate.

Hubris and humiliation: How the myth of meritocracy fueled the rise of Trump and right-wing populism

With Donald Trump and JD Vance cheering on as their armed thugs terrorize American cities, you might think this is not the optimal time for revisiting Hillary Clinton’s 2016 comment about consigning half of Donald Trump’s supporters to a “basket of deplorables.”

Yet according to Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel, the attitude that underlies Clinton’s statement has a lot to do with where we find ourselves today. Sandel argues that we are reaping the whirlwind of meritocracy. That ideology, closely associated with neoliberalism and free trade, shaped much of the post-World War II era, especially starting in the 1980s. It ended in the Trump-led populist revolt in the U.S., the Brexit vote in the U.K., and the rightward turn of other liberal democracies in Europe and elsewhere.

Sign up for free email delivery of Media Nation. You can also join my Patreon for just $6 a month and receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive content.

Meritocracy, Sandel writes, has led to the mistaken belief among elites that they deserve the wealth and prestige that have been bestowed upon them, and that those left behind deserve their lot in life as well. Moreover, the left-behind believe it, too. In a more formally hierarchical society, like an aristocracy, everyone knows the game is rigged. Thus those at the top understand that their privileged position is an accident of birth, while those at the bottom are able to hang on to some semblance of self-esteem. By contrast, if they have been sorted out as meritocracy’s “losers,” they have been taught to believe they have no one to blame but themselves.

Continue reading “Hubris and humiliation: How the myth of meritocracy fueled the rise of Trump and right-wing populism”

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says it will close. Race and politics have been tearing it apart for years.

*Outrage by the white leadership over Alexis Johnson’s tweet marked a key moment in the Post-Gazette’s downward trajectory. Credit: Simone Perez via thealexisjohnson.com.*

Block Communications announced Wednesday that it will shut down the storied Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in May. Writing at Nieman Lab, Joshua Benton confirms what I told Charlie Wolfson of Pittsburgh’s Public Source — that an actual closure would make Pittsburgh the largest city in the U.S. without a daily newspaper.

Benton, though, expresses optimism that with the feuding Block family out of the way, the path is clearer for someone else to step in. One possibility he cites: the Lenfest Institute, a nonprofit foundation that already owns and operates the for-profit Philadelphia Inquirer on the other side of the state.

The Post-Gazette was once a great paper, winning its most recent Pultizer Prize in 2019 for its coverage of the mass shootings at the Tree of Life Synagogue. That’s when the distinguished Boston Globe alumnus David Shribman was executive editor of the paper. After he retired, though, the paper increasingly went MAGA under one faction of the Block family.

I wrote about a particularly ugly incident in 2020 for GBH News. If you’d like to know some background about what went wrong at the Post-Gazette, here is my commentary.

Continue reading “The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says it will close. Race and politics have been tearing it apart for years.”

There’s a lot less to the Globe’s two missing panels from ‘Doonesbury’ than meets the eye

*The first two panels of this past Sunday’s “Doonesbury.”*

I got a tip on Monday that The Boston Globe had lopped off the first two panels of the “Doonesbury” comic that appeared in this past Sunday’s paper. A quick check revealed that, indeed, the original comic consisted of eight panels, and the Globe ran just the last six. Given that the first panel depicted Donald Trump aide Stephen Miller letting loose with a Nazi salute and proclaiming “Heil!,” it seemed that maybe someone got it in their head to err on the side of inoffensiveness. Here is the complete eight-panel “Doonesbury” from this past Sunday.

But it turns out there’s a lot less to this than meets the eye.

Sign up for free email delivery of Media Nation. You can also join my Patreon for just $6 a month and receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive content.

In an attempt to find out what was going on, I posted a question on social media asking if this had happened anywhere else. I immediately heard from journalist Joshua J. Friedman, who wrote on Bluesky:

You'll also have to do a survey of whether the given paper always omits the first two (optional) panels! (But you very likely know this.)

— Joshua J. Friedman (@joshuajfriedman.com) 2026-01-06T22:18:13.774Z

I did not! Somehow I had made it to the age of 69 without realizing that many Sunday comic strips, including “Doonesbury,” make the first two panels optional so that newspapers can omit them in order to save space and, thus, money. So no, the Globe did not engage in any censorious editing. It did what it always does, and what many other papers also do. I went back in the archives for both “Doonesbury” and the Globe for several weeks, and in every instance the original consisted of eight panels and the Globe ran just the last six.

Those first two panels invariably consist of a quick and dispensable gag before moving on to the main part of the strip. In the case of last Sunday’s “Doonesbury,” it’s unfortunate that the two-panel gag was a particularly caustic jab at the loathsome Miller. That’s one that shouldn’t have ended up on the cutting-room floor.

My social media respondents told me that The Washington Post, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Portland Press Herald of Maine (which runs “Doonesbury” in its opinion section) were among the dailies that deleted the first two panels from their print editions. Don’t @ me about the Post. One of my correspondents found that the Post had eliminated the first two panels of “Doonesbury” the previous week as well, and presumably does so every week. And by the way, my understanding is that Sunday comic sections are generally not put together by the papers themselves but by syndication services they subscribe to.

Friedman also shared a 2016 blog post about the phenomenon as well as a Wikipedia article.

Comics have always been regarded as an indispensable part of the Sunday paper, but they have succumbed to cost-cutting just like every other part of the newspaper business. It’s not censorship, but it’s a shame nevertheless.

Why the Times’ and Post’s decision not to publish calls to mind the Bay of Pigs myth of 1961

*Front and center: The New York Times reports on the imminent invasion of Cuba on April 7, 1961.*

The New York Times and The Washington Post learned about U.S. plans to attack Venezuela shortly before the raid began, according to Max Tani and Shelby Talcott of Semafor. But they declined to run with the story “to avoid endangering US troops, two people familiar with the communications between the administration and the news organizations said.”

Sign up for free email delivery of Media Nation. You can also join my Patreon for just $6 a month and receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive content.

The decision was reminiscent of the legend over how the Times reported on an imminent U.S.-backed invasion of Cuba in 1962, which I’ll get to in a few moments.

But first, regarding the Venezuela decision: Right call or wrong call? As the Semafor story notes, the decision was “in keeping with longstanding American journalistic traditions.” Independent media commentator Margaret Sullivan writes that she’s torn and asks her readers to weigh in. At the Columbia Journalism Review, Jem Bartholomew leans toward yes they should have on the grounds that the Times and the Post knew the raid would violate international law.

Continue reading “Why the Times’ and Post’s decision not to publish calls to mind the Bay of Pigs myth of 1961”