The newly revived “Beat the Press with Emily Rooney” is back with its second story.
This time around, Emily, Scott Van Voorhis and I take on Tony Dokoupil’s embarrassing debut as anchor of the “CBS Evening News.” Dokoupil has, among other things, both-sides-ed the unprovoked killing of Renee Good at the hands of ICE agent Jonathan Ross, sucked up to Marco Rubio, and interviewed White House border czar Tom Homan while failing to ask him about the brown paper bag with $50,000 cash inside.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.”
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.
1. How two-tier Disney is helping to fuel the rise of middle-class anger and resentment (Sept. 2). Taking your family to a Disney resort has always been an expensive proposition — but at least you had the sense that everyone was in it together. Not anymore. As The New York Times reported, Disney in recent years has embraced a two-tier system that shuts out middle-class and working-class families. You have to pay massive fees to avoid standing in line for top attractions. You have to stay at an expensive Disney hotel or other Disney-owned accommodations even to get access to the best deals. Our once-common culture has split in two, one for the shrinking middle class, the other for the rich.
2. The Associated Press tells its book critics that it’s ending weekly reviews (Aug. 8). It’s always humbling when I republish a memo and attract more traffic than my own deathless prose is able to generate. Anyway, a Media Nation correspondent passed along a depressing note from Anthony McCartney, the AP’s global entertainment and lifestyle editor, that began:
I am writing to share that the AP is ending its weekly book reviews, beginning Sept. 1. This was a difficult decision but one made after a thorough review of AP’s story offerings and what is being most read on our website and mobile apps as well as what customers are using. Unfortunately, the audience for book reviews is relatively low and we can no longer sustain the time it takes to plan, coordinate, write and edit reviews. AP will continue covering books as stories, but at the moment those will handled exclusively by staffers.
3. Renée Graham quits Globe editorial board over Charlie Kirk editorial but will remain as a columnist (Sept. 18). The shocking public murder of right-wing provocateur Charlie Kirk prompted some disingenuous commentary from observers who should have known better — including The Boston Globe’s editorial board, which ran a piece whose headline initially read “We need more Charlie Kirks.” The editorial intoned that “his weapon of choice was always words,” making no reference to his doxxing of left-wing academics, leading to harassment and death threats. That prompted Renée Graham to quit the editorial board in protest. Fortunately for those of us who value her voice, she has continued writing her column and her newsletter.
This past semester I had a small but mighty class of students who took my course POV: The Art and Craft of Opinion Journalism. They wrote personal essays, reviews, op-ed-style pieces and, as their final project, an enterprise story encompassing research, interviews and a strong point of view. Here is a presentation of their work. They did a great job.
You can count on one hand the number of independently owned large metro newspapers that are doing reasonably well and continuing to grow. Among them is The Boston Globe. Today’s print edition features a full-page ad consisting of a year-end message from Linda Henry, the CEO of Boston Globe Media, in which she lays out a few intriguing hints about what’s to come in 2026. (I have not seen it online or in an email, at least not yet.)
Among the goals she lays out for the coming year: “Deepening coverage of Boston’s neighborhoods and expanding our presence across New England.” More city coverage would certainly be welcome. But I’m especially interested in her focus on New England.
The Globe’s Rhode Island and New Hampshire coverage have been valuable additions to the paper’s mission. Its reporting on the recent mass shooting at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, was not only comprehensive and well-executed, but it also helped inform its coverage of what turned out to be a related killing in Brookline. So what’s next?
We have reached the let’s-hope-Canada-beams-in-news-that’s-being-censored-in-our-own-country stage of authoritarianism.
On Monday afternoon, the “60 Minutes” story on mostly Venezuelan detainees being sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador — canceled by CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss — popped up on Canada’s Global TV app. It was taken down a short time later because of copyright issues, but it’s been showing up here and there on social media ever since. I’m hoping this broadcast-quality version, on Yashar Ali’s newsletter, The Reset, will stick around for a while.
As you’ll see, detainees, many of whom have not been accused of any crime other than being in the U.S. illegally, say there were subjected to beatings, torture and sexual abuse during their time in the CECOT prison. As for Weiss’ complaint that the story did not include any comment from the Trump regime, here’s what we hear toward the end of Sharyn Alfonsi’s report:
The Department of Homeland Security declined our request for an interview and referred all questions about CECOT to El Salvador. The government there did not respond to our request.
We’ve been having a debate on Facebook over whether it’s fair to say that Weiss “canceled” the story given that she has said she wants to run it after it’s re-edited. I contend that it was canceled, not delayed, because it was scheduled to run on Sunday evening and it wasn’t. Also, Weiss has made it clear that if the story does run, it won’t be what you see here.
As Alfonsi said, to cancel the story for lack of White House comment even though they were given an opportunity to weigh in is to hand a “veto” to the very officials that “60 Minutes” was trying to hold to account. As I tell my students, you need to give people you’re reporting on a fair chance to respond — but you can’t let it drag on for so long that their silence is used to kill the story.
