A media ethics case with a tragic consequence

SCREENSHOT OF 1819 News’ first story about bubba copeland

Cynics may be surprised to learn that media codes of ethics exist and take more than 30 seconds to read. That’s because media wield tremendous power – power customarily used for the public good but sometimes misused to disastrous effect.

The Alabama news website 1819 News published a story on Wednesday revealing, against his will, that F.L. “Bubba” Copeland, the mayor of Smiths Station and the pastor of First Baptist Church of Phenix City, posted social media photos of himself dressed as a woman. This included lingerie pictures, and the story also said he offered online encouragement to people considering gender transition.

Copeland told the reporter this was a hobby intended to relieve stress. On Wednesday night, Copeland told his congregation he had nothing to be ashamed of.

On Friday, 1819 News published a story saying Copeland also wrote and posted erotic transgender fiction that included names and photos of real people in the community. The fiction, according to the site, included secret surveillance and the imagined killing of a real person.

On Friday afternoon, Copeland killed himself.

Public reaction around the state, including from many journalists, branded the reports as cruel and unjustified. That’s accurate. And it would be accurate even if Copeland hadn’t ended his life.

As I wrote in 2021, multiple circumstances can make the private life of a public official legitimately newsworthy. The foremost question is whether private activities affect public performance. In Copeland’s case, there’s zero evidence of impact on his performance as mayor or as pastor.

But a public official’s hypocrisy can provide another reason for reporters to fairly delve into private behavior. This applies most often to lawmakers and political candidates who live one way but vote or campaign another. That’s not Copeland.

Was he a hypocrite as a Baptist preacher? That’s a better argument. But as with any media dilemma, you also have to answer the next question: Was he harming anyone inside or outside of the congregation? Was he harassing or grooming anyone? 1819 News threw in a lot of sentences to suggest maybe, possibly, perhaps that could happen. Actual evidence remained at zero.

I emailed a few questions to 1819 News editor Jeff Poor on Saturday morning. I’ll update the post if he replies. A statement on the website extends “our prayers” to the community, the church, and Copeland’s family. Nothing in the way of editorial explanation. On social media, Poor pointed out that Copeland’s posts were publicly accessible on Reddit and so he shouldn’t have had an expectation of privacy. That’s about 10% of a persuasive argument to publish. Magnifying the reach of private content without consent is a helluva leap from that.

1819 News pushes a right-wing political agenda, and that includes its selection and framing of news stories. Long before the Copeland stories, it decided to actively take a side in the escalating culture wars of the state and nation.

Carefully deciding when private matters deserve public attention is one thing. Deciding you’re the morality police is another. When politics gets put ahead of ethics, people get harmed. And sometimes people get killed.

In Gaza hospital reports, the crutch of attribution failed

early version of the new york times’ online coverage of the gaza hospital explosion Oct. 17, which THE TIMES later RECANTED. (screenshot from niemanlab.org)

Nothing sets up the news media for errors and remorse better than the bad combination of major breaking news and the immediate lack of information about that news. Audiences demand information pronto, and the media have zippo.

This was the case when an explosion occurred Oct. 17 at a Gaza City hospital. The New York Times soon posted this big, online headline: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say.” The headline went through several versions, including one that added “At Least 500 Dead.” The “Palestinians” in “Palestinians Say” was the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Health Ministry. Other media around the globe produced similar headlines, including some with no attribution.

As the world learned from emerging evidence over the next 48 hours, the finger point to Israel was wrong. Also known as a lie. The leading suspected cause is now an errant Palestinian rocket. And the 500 death count was too high.

But neither the gradual revelation of the truth, nor Israel’s dispute of the blame 90 minutes after the explosion, could offset the anti-Israel sentiments and protests sparked by the steadfast first impression from the early media reports, which gave credibility to a claim and a source that deserved none.

In a case like this, journalists shouldn’t even bother with the “Well, they said it” defense.

But that defense – thinking you’re off the hook because you attributed information to a source – is part of why The Times and other organizations did what they did. As was the immediate information vacuum, which is especially common in a war. Everyone is desperately looking for news that seems quickly reportable.

Editors and producers can find other self-justifications for publishing disinformation. For instance, that powerful people and entities deserve time and space just because they are powerful. And that propaganda campaigns – in wars and politics, especially – are newsworthy in themselves.

In some cases, I buy the argument that the public needs to know if newsmakers are spreading false information. The question to always ask, though, is what potential harm may come from giving attention to the falsehoods. Does it endanger anyone? Does it spawn hatred? That both would happen in the case of the false accusation against Israel was completely predictable.

One New York Times editor, who was rebuffed, tried to warn against the intended headline, according to an article Tuesday in Vanity Fair, which obtained internal messages. The editor wrote: “We can’t just hang the attribution of something so big on one source without having tried to verify it. And then slap it across the top of the [homepage]. Putting the attribution at the end doesn’t give us cover, if we’ve been burned and we’re wrong.”

The Times, unlike several other guilty news outlets, eventually admitted its mistake, saying it “should have taken more care with the initial presentation.” What exactly does that mean? To start, it means making it clear what claims are unverified and whether any evidence exists. It also means stating any and all facts to the contrary.

Of course, do those defenses work if people read only the headline? That would be a no. And if someone were predisposed to believe a lie, would contradictory facts stop them? That would be another no.

So here’s an idea: When the stakes are really high, go against nature and custom and don’t publish the claim. Grant time for the truth to show itself. Be willing to run behind the pack on the apparent blockbuster, which won’t be a blockbuster anyway if it’s wrong. When standing in an information void, news organizations need the courage to do this more often.

Atrocities in Israel cause news media to show more of horrifying truth

screenshot from video posted by the new york times. it credited south first responders via the social media platform telegram.

With social media showing so much ghastly video from the Hamas terrorism in Israel in the past week, the news media certainly don’t serve as the gatekeeper for what the public can see. But news organizations still reach a lot of people who won’t go hunting for content on social media, so their decisions of how graphically to depict awful events still matter.

What I’ve seen lately are news media that believe the realities in Israel and in the Gaza Strip demand pushing, but still not ripping, the envelope of traditional bounds.

I wrote last year, during the early days of Russia’s violent invasion of Ukraine, that publication of images of the victims of any kind of violence disrespects the dead, but also that more and more journalists and advocates believe it’ll take some visual shock to get the public and decision makers motivated to end the suffering.

I’m posting three examples from the Hamas-Israel war that tested typical editorial limits. Clicking means you agree to view disturbing images. (The news organizations posted warning labels, as they should have.)

• The Washington Post published a video taken from social media of Hamas militants leading four civilian hostages away on foot with their hands tied, then a video from a few moments later that showed all four lying dead on the ground.

• The New York Times published a video taken from social media of a gunman ambushing and firing into a car that was pulling up to a kibbutz gate. The video shows multiple bullets striking the driver, who was partially visible through the car windows. Everyone in the car died.

• CNN posted a video from the Palestinian Health Ministry that included bloody dead bodies on the ground following Israeli shelling near Gaza City.

Is the press doing this as propaganda for one of the sides? Nice conspiracy theory but no.

Such decisions are easier to make when the events occur in other nations. U.S. news media restrain themselves more when it’s American mass violence. But I also call your attention to two recent, impressive efforts to portray the brutality of violence – gun violence in these cases – without showing the gore that would repulse the audience. These come from two of the national outlets mentioned above. They clearly believe the public needs a more realistic picture of the problem.

In March, The Washington Post used 3D animations to show the devastating damage that an AR-15 does to the human body.

In April, The New York Times produced a gut-wrenching magazine story on the crime-scene investigators at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The headline: “They saw the horrific aftermath of a mass shooting. Should we?”

I answer no. In the case of Hamas, written descriptions were all I needed to grasp the depravity. But a growing number of news media professionals would say it’s time to answer yes.

How students, teachers can achieve mutual appreciation

Here at The Arenblog, when not writing about journalism, we’re all about harmony and understanding between students and faculty in higher education.

About this time four years ago, I offered my still valid “Five ways for professors and students not to drive each other crazy.” Today, there’s an almost completely different cohort of students at UA, along with a bunch of new profs.

This time, I sought the wisdom of other people – students and other faculty in the College of Communications. I asked some fellow professors to fill in the blank: “I really appreciate it when a student _____.” Then I asked some students to volunteer to complete the reverse of that statement.

I got great replies. Students should read the faculty answers and faculty should read the student answers! Professors first.

Angela Billings, Communication Studies: “I really appreciate it when a student comes to office hours just to talk.”

Camille DeBose, Journalism and Creative Media: "I really appreciate it when a student iterates. When I see a student make the effort to complete their work one way, and then take the initiative to try it from a different angle, it's pretty wonderful. That's when I know they are really engaging the material.”

Shaheen Kanthawala, Journalism and Creative Media: "I really appreciate it when a student nods along or displays an action to tell me they're following what I said. It's hard to always gauge student engagement and comprehension, especially in larger classrooms, but the little move goes a long way. "

Michael Little, Advertising and Public Relations: “I really appreciate it when a student thanks me years after graduating. When they remember lessons or assistance from undergrad and write a nice letter or e-mail thanking me, it always makes my day.”

Mark Mayfield, Journalism and Creative Media: “I really appreciate it when a student speaks up in class, without being asked, about something they have seen, read or heard related to the lecture topic. It shows a higher level of engagement and livens up the discussion.”

Caroline S. Parsons, Communication Studies: "I really appreciate it when a student shares good news with me, such as getting a job or internship.”

Becky Robinson, Journalism and Creative Media: “I really appreciate it when a student tells me they appreciate me. So often, we just get emails with questions or complaints, but the best emails are when students say they appreciate the time I’ve taken to talk to them, even if it’s not related to the course.”

Jay Waters, Advertising and Public Relations: “I really appreciate it when a student lets me know about something they see outside of the classroom that can (correctly) connect with things we've talked about inside of the classroom. To me, it shows that they are not compartmentalizing their school work from the rest of their lives.”

Danford Zirugo, Journalism and Creative Media: "I really appreciate it when a student is respectful of class times​. That is coming to class on time, contributing to class discussions and not unnecessarily disrupting the flow of the class by coming late or walking out."

Now, the students’ turn:

Dany Bazar, News Media major: “I really appreciate it when a professor goes out of their way to help me outside of the classroom -- realistic open-door policies, study guides, and internships.”

Elena Giorgi, Political Science major: “I really appreciate it when a professor recommends organizations on campus to me because they see potential in me to succeed in that way. It makes me feel seen as more than a name on a roster.” 

Victor Hagan, News Media major: “I really appreciate it when a professor takes an interest in my career goals.”

Jacey Hamilton, Communication Studies major: “I really appreciate it when a professor makes it evident that they love what they do. I've noticed that professors who genuinely love their job are typically more engaged with their students and spend more time wanting to help students and push them to succeed.”

Jas Jones, News Media major: “I really appreciate it when a professor genuinely cares about their students and goes the extra mile to ensure that the material is thoroughly understood.”

Abby McCreary, News Media major: “I really appreciate it when a professor communicates well with their students. Clear deadlines, reminders about upcoming assignments, and emails are all helpful.”

Sutton Smith, Community Journalism grad student: “I really appreciate it when a professor makes themself available to the student often. Whether answering emails in a reasonable time or having flexibility in office hours, professors who made these accommodations really helped me out as a student and I'm sure others too.” 

Avery Taylor, English and Political Science major: “I really appreciate it when a professor shows that they have empathy. I think sometimes it is challenging as a student to be worried about something other than school but to feel like school has to be the No. 1 priority. I appreciate professors who indicate that they understand that their assignment or class is not the only thing that exists in the lives of their students.”

“I really appreciate it when a professor shows that they have empathy.”

— UA student Avery Taylor

Defeated publisher offers powerful defense of local journalism

Journalists of digital first media, owned by alden global capital, protest the hedge fund’s cost-cutting at its newspapers around the country in 2018 in new york.

I’m doing no work for this blog post because George Lynett is going to make the point for me.

George Lynett is the publisher emeritus of Times-Shamrock Communications, which last week sold its four daily newspapers in Pennsylvania (Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Pottsville and Hazelton) to the worst media chain in the country, MediaNews Group, owned by hedge fund Alden Global Capital.

Lynett was the lone dissenter among family members in selling to Alden and ending 128 years of family ownership. Although family-owned publications and even chains still exist, that kind of ownership has shriveled in recent decades. Ownership by national corporate chains dominates the industry today. With that have come consolidation and reduction, and in some cases decimation.

Alden, the second-largest newspaper chain in the U.S. with over 200 dailies and weeklies, is especially villainous. So much so that Lynett and his grown children went public with their displeasure, releasing a statement that is eloquent, heartfelt and sad. And full of truth.

“Newspapers have been our family business for nearly 128 years. Since 1895, we have had the privilege of serving this community with local news, events and happenings. Today marks a very sad end to that legacy. Our family would like to express our gratitude to the loyal employees, readers and advertisers who have been with us all these years.

“We feel it is important to express our personal dissatisfaction with the sale of Times-Shamrock newspapers to MediaNews Group, a subsidiary of Alden Capital. This was a transaction that we do not support or endorse. Alden does not reflect the business principles we feel are consistent with the stewardship of any newspaper.

“The sale was driven by a majority of our shareholders. We understand the fears about our ability to remain competitive. We recognize the underlying concerns about the newspaper industry’s revenue and audience declines, and the desire of many of the shareholders to leave the painful decisions to cut costs, coverage and employees in someone else’s hands. 

“We remained confident and hopeful that our current Board of Directors and management team would have been able to lead us through the industry’s headwinds more effectively and humanely than a hedge fund like Alden.

“The willingness to sell a company steeped in integrity and family tradition -- and staffed by loyal, bright, compassionate employees -- to a company with such a devastating reputation in the industry runs against everything we believe in. We are concerned for our employees, our communities and our family legacy.

“Newspapers are a tough business. That’s undeniable. But a newspaper is much more than just a business. It is the only business explicitly protected by the Constitution. It is a local institution and expected to track government spending, keep an eye on politicians, advocate for the voiceless, ask tough questions, cover local sports and businesses, and record the milestones in readers’ lives.

“Newspapers provide the ‘first draft of history’ as the local historical record. They are the only true local watchdog with a large newsroom and resources capable of providing in-depth, verified news and investigative reporting on a large scale in any community.

one of the pennsylvania dailies sold by times-shamrock communications.

“Most family newspaper sale announcements bear some variation of stock language regarding the new owner's ability to ‘assume the families' stewardship,’ ‘continue to provide strong local reporting,’ and ‘maintain the legacy’ of the selling family. Sadly, we feel that none of that will be true in our case.

“For four generations, members of our family dedicated their careers to the idea of a free and independent press that would ceaselessly endeavor to improve the community. As a newspaper family and stewards of reliable news, we have heavy hearts ending that legacy and will forever cherish the countless community of dedicated employees who worked alongside us and our family for generations.”

AI spreads in journalism. Remain calm, everyone.

Social media had a good time mocking this AI prep football story published by Gannett’s Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch on Aug. 18. It contains no names or stats, repeats the score in the first two paragraphs, repeats “Ohio football” in the first two paragraphs, and includes bizarre phrases such as “thin win” and “close encounter of the athletic kind.” The question is, is a mess like that better than no report at all? UPDATE AUG. 28: Axios reported that after this story went viral on social media, the dispatch “paused” use of its ai program to write prep sports stories.

The issue of how artificial intelligence programs will affect journalism is an interesting and complicated one. Some say they could have benefits. Others say they might be harmful. It depends on how they are used.

Did you think this was yet another article about AI for which the writer cleverly asked an AI program to write the lead? Fooled ya! This was actually my trying to write like an AI program.

Either way, pretty lame, eh?

The use of artificial intelligence in journalism is spreading rapidly, and debates over what newsrooms should and shouldn’t use it for are spreading even more rapidly. Rest assured the private equity and hedge fund owners of news chains are trying to figure out how they can use it to save on labor costs, which has led to some panic among the industry rank and file about job security and product quality.

AI software currently has a variety of uses in the field. Just a few examples: transcribing interviews; identifying trending topics online; delivering individually personalized news; flexible website paywalls; and internet data scraping. Let’s focus on its more controversial ability to create content.

The Associated Press uses AI to write articles from reports of corporate earnings. The Washington Post uses it to write articles from high school football statistics. These are examples of smart applications, producing formulaic stories in quantity and freeing journalists for more ambitious work.*

“Large language models” such as ChatGPT and Bard can also write whole stories from inputted data. This is not as smart. Even though the capabilities of AI are improving rapidly, results are too often factually wrong, dully written and generic rather than localized. Journalism garbage, in other words.

Nieman Lab recently surveyed news organizations around the world that have guidelines on AI and found that most do not allow creation of stories and photos. (Accepted uses included research, headline suggestions, social media posts and creation of illustrations.) The Knight Foundation examined 130 AI-related newsroom projects and determined that only 15% of them involved automated story generation.

The future might look different. The New York Times reported in July that Google demonstrated a story-writing program to representatives of The Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, who saw it as potential assistance to their journalists.

AI offers tremendous potential gains in the production of standardized news stories. But writing journalism that readers will pay for demands more than that: critical thinking, context, nuance, creativity, style. And no good story can be written without the good reporting and interviewing that must come first. All that comes from pros, not programs.

Of course, news owners and managers have to recognize this, which explains the alarm among news unions and other news staff. Bosses can’t afford to underestimate the value of high-quality work and what it takes to achieve it.

New tech is always scary. It can be misused. But it can also be a gift.

*Sometimes AI can’t even do formula stories without embarrassment. See the photo with this post and the update in the caption Aug. 28.

Click here for my February take on how AI fits, and doesn’t fit, in a college classroom.

We're not in Kansas anymore

police confiscate equipment from the newsroom of the marion county record in marion, kansas, on aug. 11.

UPDATE (Aug. 16, 4:30 p.m.): The Marion County prosecutor said this afternoon that the warrant application had insufficient evidence to justify the search and the Kansas Bureau of Investigation said seized items would be returned to the newspaper. UPDATE (Oct. 3): Marion’s police chief was suspended, then he resigned.

The many powerful people who don’t like the news media have all sorts of ways to make life harder for them. Publicly attack credibility. Pass laws restricting information. Take away public notices. File a lawsuit. And the occasional physical assault.

There’s also the option to steal their equipment and kill their mothers.

The journalism community across the country is rightly up in arms about Friday’s raid on the newsroom of the family-owned Marion County Record in Marion, Kansas (population 1,900). Acting with a search warrant approved by a judge, local law enforcement seized computers, cellphones and other reporting materials. One reporter had her cellphone taken from her hand.

Authorities also raided the home of the editor and his 98-year-old mother, the newspaper’s co-owner. “These are Hitler tactics,” she said. Her son said the raid “stressed her beyond her limits” and left her unable to eat or sleep. The next day, she collapsed and died.

According to the warrant, the searches and seizures stemmed from an investigation into whether the newspaper committed a crime – identity theft and illegal use of a computer – to obtain (but not publish) records showing an old criminal conviction of a local citizen. The editor denies this, saying a confidential source provided the records unsolicited.

Journalists can’t commit crimes to gather news. But it’s well established that they can’t be punished if they innocently receive information that was illegally obtained by someone else.

Maybe this is a sincere investigation by Marion police. Or more likely, as the editor believes, this is harassment motivated by the newspaper’s current investigation into the reasons the police chief left his previous job.

Don’t ever be surprised when there’s a political angle to these things.

Even more alarmingly, the editor says the confiscated equipment holds the names of confidential sources the Record talked to in its reporting about the chief.

When the government decides to get heavy handed with news organizations, it’s often by using subpoenas to try to obtain reporters’ cellphone and email records from a third party as part of a leak investigation (see here, here and here for examples). That’s not great, but at least news organizations can challenge subpoenas or negotiate what information might be turned over to the government.

That ain’t what happened in Marion. The raids were a remarkable abuse of power and almost certainly illegal under federal law. Thirty five news outlets and press freedom organizations sent Marion’s police chief a letter correctly noting that “newsroom searches and seizures are among the most intrusive actions law enforcement can take with respect to the free press, and the most potentially suppressive of free speech by the press and the public.”

Obviously, searches and seizures are physical interferences with journalists’ ability to do their jobs. Powerful people trying to avoid accountability also like the companion effect of intimidating journalists’ potential future sources.

Last week’s episode took place in Kansas USA, but actions like those come from the script of authoritarian governments.

A journalism disaster in Georgia

The conventional thinking warns that the stories that get news organizations in trouble are the ones they’d least expect. It’s not the sensitive major investigations because those get so heavily vetted before publication.

LOL. Try getting The Atlanta Journal-Constitution to agree with the conventional thinking right now.

this is the revised headline atop the atlanta journal-constitution’s investigation into sexual assault within the university of georgia football program. an editor’s note atop the revised story said: “the headline, subheadline and portions of the text of this article were changed on July 19, 2023, after the AJC determined that certain statements contained in the article when it was originally published did not meet the AJC’s editorial standards.”

On June 27, the AJC published a seemingly worthy expose alleging that the University of Georgia football program under head coach Kirby Smart engaged in systematic protection of players who had been accused of sexual assault. The story claimed the AJC knew of 11 such situations but, notably, included the names of only two of the 11 players.

The article prompted the university’s athletic association to send a letter to the AJC, claiming major inaccuracies and bias. It raised the possibility of reporter fabrication, and demanded a retraction of the entire article. College athletic programs hide and twist facts a lot, but the nine-page, highly detailed letter made a persuasive case that the report had to be somewhat or perhaps seriously flawed.

On Wednesday, after a necessary investigation by other AJC reporters and lawyers, the news organization corrected major parts of the story, changed the headline and fired the bylined reporter. It did not retract the story and in a public statement said it had determined there was no fabrication and that only two aspects of the original work were in error.

But one of those aspects, to my mind, was the premise of the story.

The AJC said it could confirm only two instances of accused players getting soft treatment from the university, not 11. Two is too many, but it’s not enough to make a case for systemic bad practices by the Georgia football program, as the AJC originally tried to do.

The outlet tossed gasoline and a match on its reputation.

Yes, every newsroom must trust its reporters to a large degree. But with a hugely negative angle such as this, I’m mystified that some editor (apparently) didn’t go one by one through the 11 cases – with player names – and confirm sufficient evidence of each case. Even if just for internal reassurance.

It’s also not clear why the initial article didn’t have any details of eight of the supposed examples. Build your case. Make it hard for the non-believers. That’s a basic of investigative reporting and writing, especially if you’re taking on a worshipped institution.

There’s another issue. Georgia’s rivals.com website reported last week that the fired journalist, Alan Judd, had resigned from the Louisville Courier-Journal in 1988 because of multiple interviewee complaints of misquotes and he could not produce the interview recordings he claimed to have. Judd told the site before he was fired that situation occurred “during a rough period in my life (and) has no bearing on anything today.”

Did the AJC, which hired Judd in 1999, know of this? And should this have disqualified him from journalism 35 years ago? I recognize the worth of second chances, but to me, the answers are yes and yes. That would have meant the AJC wouldn’t have benefitted from two decades of good investigative reporting by Judd. It also would have meant no mess like the current one.

The AJC previously did some good investigative work into the Bulldogs athletic program. And it no doubt will do some more. But the non-believers will have an argument forever.

Presenting the Don’t Fall For Social Media Challenges Challenge

i’m posting a photo of the “sleepy chicken challenge” because i know you’re smart enough not to actually do this. it can easily lead to a drug overdose.

Here’s a rare Arenblog cooking tip: Don’t marinate your next chicken dinner in NyQuil. It’s terrible.

OK, I didn’t really do that. But you’d think from a wave of news media reports last year that a lot of people did.

The “sleepy chicken challenge” is just one example from a long list of supposedly widespread social media “challenges” that the news media have dutifully reported on and warned against in recent years.

Letting the public know that reckless social media posts are inviting people (especially young people) to try bizarre, alarming and even dangerous stunts is a worthy public service. The problem is, evidence indicates that in most cases the challenges were not widespread on social media and people really weren’t doing them in any significant numbers.

They were overblown moral panics boosted by some lackadaisical news media.

The latest instance occurred last week in this state, when national media such as NBC’s Today Show and People magazine picked up an ABC 33/40 report that four drowning victims in the past six months had died while engaged in a “boat jumping challenge” that originated on TikTok. The basis for the report was an interview with a member of the Childersburg Rescue Squad.

But that first responder quickly backed off that statement when asked again by AL.com, and the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency issued a statement saying there was no evidence that any of the drowning deaths were connected to a TikTok challenge. There’s not much evidence online that such a challenge even exists.

According to social media experts, here are just some of the other supposedly trending social media challenges that got overhyped by the news media in the past few years. Not to say instances of these never happened, but the public attention and fear greatly surpassed reality.

• The “Tide Pod challenge” that required eating a small packet of laundry detergent.

• The “electrical outlet challenge” that required touching a coin to the prongs of a partially exposed electrical plug.

• The “slap a teacher challenge.”

• “Devious licks,” which required vandalizing a school restroom.

• The “cheese challenge” that bizarrely entailed throwing a piece of sliced cheese onto a baby’s face.

Naturally, the performance of each of these was supposed to be videoed and posted on social media.

The blame on journalists for overselling goes down when a well-meaning government regulator or a company steps in with a public warning of its own. It’s understandable to report that. That happened, for instance, with the Food and Drug Administration and the NyQuil chicken.

Nefarious influences have played a role, too. The Washington Post reported a remarkable story in 2022 that Facebook paid a PR firm to conduct a behind-the-scenes campaign to make rival TikTok seem dangerous. The “slap a teacher” and “devious licks” challenges, which actually appeared first on Facebook, were among the firm’s smear attempts.

Regardless of the actions of others, reporters can conduct their own internet research to figure out the origin and spread of a topic. Reporters whose beat is the internet know how to do this, but it’s useful for all reporters.

My department colleague Dr. Jess Maddox, who recently wrote about the purported boat jumping challenge and whose social media expertise I’m leaning on in this post, wrote a commentary last year as part of Nieman Lab’s 2023 predictions for journalism.

She made the key point that most of the threat of dangerous copycat behavior comes from talk about the behavior in the news media and on social media, not from actual videos of the challenge being performed. “Unless people in the press retain internet experts … they’ll continue to do more harm than any internet challenge ever could,” she wrote.

The headline atop her prediction? “Journalists keep getting manipulated by internet culture.” Yep.

Use of Espionage Act vs. Trump isn’t dubious. Here’s a case that is.

members of reporters without borders advocate for Julian assange’s release from prison in london in 2021.

(Update June 25, 2024: The Julian Assange case ends with his plea of guilty to one felony count of obtaining and publishing classified national security information. His sentence is the equivalent of time already served while fighting extradition to the U.S. This avoids a court ruling adverse to press freedom. But for the first time the U.S. government has used the Espionage Act to punish a publisher.)

Donald Trump on Saturday mocked the Espionage Act of 1917, the law by which he faces criminal charges for absconding with classified government documents. “They want to use something called the Espionage Act,” he said at a convention in Georgia. “Doesn’t that sound terrible?”

He should be familiar with it, actually. His administration used it as the basis for a terrible criminal case against the founder of the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.

The act, passed to try to stifle dissent about U.S. involvement in World War I, has generated much debate over the years about what it should be used for. Infringement of the First Amendment led to revisions that stripped away the law’s original purpose. Since then it has been used to punish spies working for other countries (see, for example, Robert Hanssen, who died in prison last week) and it clearly applies to mishandling of records such as the Trump case.

It also has been used more controversially to punish government employees who leak sensitive information to the press, including revelations that benefitted the public interest. The case pending against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sends the Espionage Act of 1917 into a whole new area: Targeting the journalists who publish leaked information.

Before I stand up for his actions in this case, let’s be clear that Julian Assange is a bad guy.

Facing investigation in connection with a sexual assault in Sweden in 2012, Assange took asylum in the London embassy of Ecuador, which expelled him in 2019 for being a belligerent guest. Now imprisoned in London, Assange is fighting an extradition request from the United States that was granted by the British government. The most recent British court ruling, on Friday, went against him.

In 2019, the U.S. government charged Assange with 18 crimes related to WikiLeaks’ publication (almost 10 years prior) of leaked, classified government documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This action ignores the constitutional right to publish secret information in the public interest, even if the original source of the information broke the law in providing it.

The Justice Department argued that it wasn’t infringing on First Amendment rights because Assange engaged in conduct that was not protected. It’s true that journalists can’t commit or abet a crime in the course of gathering information, and if the Justice Department had stuck to its lone original charge – that Assange violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by helping Chelsea Manning try to crack a password to a secure government computer – the defenders of press freedom might not have been so outraged. Because hacking is not a protected journalistic activity.

julian assange in 2013

But the Justice Department didn’t stick with just that. It later announced 18 new counts, including 17 brought under the Espionage Act of 1917. The Obama administration used the Espionage Act aggressively against leakers within the government. With the Assange case, the Trump administration became the first to use that law as the basis for action against a publisher (and it did so despite some dissenters within the Justice Department who were concerned about First Amendment rights). Some major news organizations around the world have urged the Biden administration to drop the case, but so far it isn’t doing so.

Many press freedom advocates see little difference between what WikiLeaks did and what national security reporters do regularly. “Every national security journalist who reports on classified information now faces possible Espionage Act charges,” journalist Laura Poitras, who published classified documents provided by Edward Snowden, wrote in The New York Times in 2020.

The federal government claims Assange is a criminal because he was not a passive recipient of leaked information, but instead engaged in active solicitation. Does that view therefore criminalize reporters who engage in the very normal practice of telling potential leakers why there’s public service value in revealing certain government acts? Does that view criminalize the many news organizations that provide encrypted methods for confidential sources to deliver sensitive information? These are legitimate worries that come from the Assange case.

But this case isn’t merely about the reporting process. The charges also arise from some of the content that WikiLeaks published. Poitras cites worthy revelations about war crimes and civilian deaths. But the Justice Department points to disclosure of identities of Afghans and Iraqis who aided the United States, thus placing them in danger of retribution, as well as to disclosures about U.S. war tactics.

Ethical and responsible journalists won’t publish such details. This is also more evidence that Assange doesn’t really qualify for the label of journalist. But a lack of professional ethics or standards doesn’t nullify a constitutional protection. Nor does being a bad guy.