The Murder of The Washington Post Today’s layoffs are the latest attempt to kill what makes the paper special.; The Atlantic, February 4, 2026

Ashley Parker, The Atlantic ; The Murder of The Washington Post Today’s layoffs are the latest attempt to kill what makes the paper special.

"We’re witnessing a murder.

Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner of The Washington Post, and Will Lewis, the publisher he appointed at the end of 2023, are embarking on the latest step of their plan to kill everything that makes the paper special. The Post has survived for nearly 150 years, evolving from a hometown family newspaper into an indispensable national institution, and a pillar of the democratic system. But if Bezos and Lewis continue down their present path, it may not survive much longer.

Over recent years, they’ve repeatedly cut the newsroom—killing its Sunday magazine, reducing the staff by several hundred, nearly halving the Metro desk—without acknowledging the poor business decisions that led to this moment or providing a clear vision for the future. This morning, executive editor Matt Murray and HR chief Wayne Connell told the newsroom staff in an early-morning virtual meeting that it was closing the Sports department and Books section, ending its signature podcast, and dramatically gutting the International and Metro departments, in addition to staggering cuts across all teams. Post leadership—which did not even have the courage to address their staff in person—then left everyone to wait for an email letting them know whether or not they had a job. (Lewis, who has already earned a reputation for showing up late to work when he showed up at all, did not join the Zoom.)

The Post may yet rise, but this will be their enduring legacy."

Federal Agents Arrest Don Lemon Over Minnesota Church Protest; The New York Times, January 30, 2026

Hamed Aleaziz, Devlin Barrett and Alan Feuer, The New York Times ; Federal Agents Arrest Don Lemon Over Minnesota Church Protest

The former CNN anchor has said he was not demonstrating, but reporting as a journalist, during the interruption of a service inside a St. Paul church earlier this month.

"The former CNN anchor Don Lemon was arrested late Thursday night on charges that he violated federal law during a protest at a church in St. Paul, Minn., his lawyer said, in a case rejected last week by a magistrate judge.

Mr. Lemon has said he was simply reporting as a journalist when he entered the Cities Church on Jan. 18 to observe a demonstration against the immigration crackdown in the area.

The protesters interrupted a service at the church, where an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official serves as a pastor, and chanted “ICE out.” Afterward, the Trump administration sought to charge eight people over the episode, including Mr. Lemon, citing a law that protects people seeking to participate in a service in a house of worship.

But the magistrate judge who reviewed the evidence approved charges against only three of the people, rejecting the evidence against Mr. Lemon and the others as insufficient. The Justice Department then petitioned a federal appeals court to force the judge to issue the additional warrants, only to be denied."

After 36 hours justifying the killing of Alex Pretti, Fox News suddenly changes its narrative; Media Matters for America, January 26, 2026

MATT GERTZ , Media Matters for America; After 36 hours justifying the killing of Alex Pretti, Fox News suddenly changes its narrative

"On Sunday evening, Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin published a lengthy report detailing internal dissent among his federal immigration enforcement sources regarding the narrative pushed by Department of Homeland Security leaders after Border Patrol officers gunned down Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse who had been videotaping their activities, in Minneapolis on Saturday morning. 

Amid the several hundred words describing an internal schism over how DHS is messaging masked agents of the state opening fire on a man who had already been restrained, Melugin slipped in the following statement: “There is no indication Pretti was there to murder law enforcement, as videos appear to show he never drew his holstered firearm.”

Melugin’s stark acknowledgement was whiplash-inducing for anyone who had been following Fox’s on-air coverage of Pretti’s killing up to that point, and it marked the start of a dramatic shift in the network’s treatment of the case.

Fox spent Saturday and much of Sunday blaming the victim and local Democrats for his death while excusing and even valorizing his executioners. In doing so the network was following in the footsteps of the high-ranking administration officials who baselessly argued that Pretti was a “would-be assassin” engaged in “domestic terrorism.” Melugin himself was the vehicle DHS used to launder its excuse that Pretti “was armed.” 

And notably, some Fox contributors repeatedly justified Pretti’s killing by going beyond the official comment to allege that he had drawn the gun he was reportedly legally carrying and that he even pointed it at the Border Patrol officers — the very claim Melugin said Sunday night had been disproved by videos.

The fallacy of the DHS smear of Pretti had long been clear to anyone who had reviewed videos of the shooting, triggering widespread outrage over his killing. But Melugin’s admission — and his reporting on a schism within immigration enforcement over the case — apparently provided his colleagues the permission structure they needed to abandon their narrative."

Most Fox News Reporting on Minneapolis Shooting Supports Official Version; The New York Times, January 25, 2026

Ken Bensinger, The New York Times; Most Fox News Reporting on Minneapolis Shooting Supports Official Version

Fox anchors were laser focused on promoting the Trump administration’s narrative that the slain protester, Alex Pretti, had brought the violence upon himself.

"On Sunday morning, reporters on many TV networks were poring over multiple videos of the shooting over the weekend of a protester in Minneapolis by immigration agents, trying to understand what happened from slow-mo footage and freeze-frame images.

But on Fox News, the nation’s top-rated cable news network, there was little of that kind of analysis. Instead, most of its hosts, reporters and guests appeared laser focused since the shooting late Saturday morning on supporting the Trump administration’s official narrative: that Alex Pretti, a 37-year old intensive care nurse, brought the violence upon himself."

‘60 Minutes’ is finally airing the shelved ‘Inside CECOT’ segment; CNN, January 18, 2026

Brian Stelter, CNN ; ‘60 Minutes’ is finally airing the shelved ‘Inside CECOT’ segment

"Nearly a month after CBS News editor in chief Bari Weiss triggered a scandal by shelving a “60 Minutes” story about Venezuelan men deported by the US to a hellish prison in El Salvador, the story is airing on Sunday evening.

Correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi, who defended the story and alleged “corporate censorship” by Weiss last month, recorded a new beginning and ending to the segment to incorporate the additions Weiss wanted.

But the report itself, titled “Inside CECOT,” remained the same as it was on the day Weiss delayed it."

‘I ultimately had to comply’: ‘60 Minutes’ EP faces fallout after Bari Weiss shelves story; The Washington Post, December 22, 2025

Liam Scott

 and 

Scott Nover

, The Washington Post; ‘I ultimately had to comply’: ‘60 Minutes’ EP faces fallout after Bari Weiss shelves story

"Kelly McBride, senior vice president at the Poynter Institute, said requiring on-camera interviews with administration officials could be abused to manipulate coverage.

“It would give them the power to pick and choose which stories they want to go out,” McBride said. “It would allow them to literally craft the narrative themselves.”

It’s also uncommon for such a deeply reported segment to be pulled at the last minute, according to McBride. “This is a really high stakes story, and if she [Weiss] wanted to be involved in the process of green lighting or red lighting, that should not happen the day before the story is ready to run,” McBride said."

When was the last time AI made you laugh? Scenes from the 2025 Summit on AI, Ethics and Journalism; Poynter, April 11, 2025

TyLisa Johnson, Poynter ; When was the last time AI made you laugh? Scenes from the 2025 Summit on AI, Ethics and Journalism

"This year’s Summit on AI, Ethics and Journalism, led by Poynter and The Associated Press, unfolded over two days in New York City’s financial district at the AP’s headquarters.

Here’s a brief summit recap through images:"

Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal; The Atlantic, March 26, 2025

Jeffrey Goldberg and Shane Harris , The Atlantic; Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal

"On Monday, shortly after we published a story about a massive Trump-administration security breach, a reporter asked the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, why he had shared plans about a forthcoming attack on Yemen on the Signal messaging app. He answered, “Nobody was texting war plans. And that’s all I have to say about that.”

At a Senate hearing yesterday, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliffe, were both asked about the Signal chat, to which Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently invited by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. “There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group,” Gabbard told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Ratcliffe said much the same: “My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.”

President Donald Trump, asked yesterday afternoon about the same matter, said, “It wasn’t classified information.”

These statements presented us with a dilemma. In The Atlantic’s initial story about the Signal chat—the “Houthi PC small group,” as it was named by Waltz—we withheld specific information related to weapons and to the timing of attacks that we found in certain texts. As a general rule, we do not publish information about military operations if that information could possibly jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel. That is why we chose to characterize the nature of the information being shared, not specific details about the attacks.

The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump—combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts—have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared."

Dying in Darkness: Jeff Bezos Turns Out the Lights in the Washington Post’s Opinion Section; Politico, February 26, 2025

MICHAEL SCHAFFER , Politico; Dying in Darkness: Jeff Bezos Turns Out the Lights in the Washington Post’s Opinion Section

"In personally announcing that he was dramatically re-orienting the editorial line, and in fact wouldn’t even run dissenting views, Bezos added another sharp example to a narrative that represents a grave threat to the Post’s image: The idea that its owner is messing around with the product in order to curry favor with his new pal Donald Trump, who has the power to withhold contracts from Amazon and other Bezos companies.

The paper’s image is not some abstract question for journalism-school professors. It’s a matter of dollars and cents. If readers don’t trust a publication’s name, no amount of Pulitzer-worthy scoops will fix it. For Bezos, a guy who believes that the Post needs to gain a broad-based audience, it’s a baffling blind spot...

Owners may get the final say at publications they own, but the wisest among them have let their newsrooms and editorial boards make their own decisions without fear or favor. That’s to prevent the very impression that Bezos is making — that of a mogul trying to disguise his own predilections as independent thought...

Yet even as leadership talked about amping up readership, the owner personally alienated real and potential readers: first by spiking the endorsement, then by showing up in the line of moguls at Trump’s inauguration and now by declaring that the publication would have one editorial line for all of its contributors. It all made his publication look wimpy, or possibly corrupt.

Instead of being an occasionally fussy repository of mostly mainstream points of view, the venerable publication’s opinion pages now risk looking like a vessel for a very rich owner to curry favor with the man who runs the government. It’s going to be hard to keep that image from sticking to the whole organization — including the non-wimpy, non-corrupt reporting corps that keep digging up scoops on the administration.

Bezos, of all people, should know this: He’s the branding whiz who came up with “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

Among many journalists, Wednesday’s bombshell announcement is being debated as a matter of media ethics: Was Bezos within his rights as an owner to call the tune on opinion matters? Or was this type of process meddling a violation of norms that go back at least to the 1950s?...

“I am of America and for America, and proud to be so,” he added. “Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical; it drives creativity, invention and prosperity.”

Sounds good late at night in the dorm room. But does said freedom include, say, the freedom to start a union at an Amazon warehouse? Or run a business without worrying that some monopolistic e-commerce behemoth is going to drive you under? Come to think of it, these sound like great subjects for energetic debate on a pluralistic op-ed page somewhere. Too bad Bezos, instead of embracing the great American history of arguing about freedom, announced that he’s not so keen on debate."

Journalistic ethics with Mark Memmott on Thursday's Access Utah; Utah Public Radio (UPR), January 20, 2022

Tom Williams, Utah Public Radio (UPR); Journalistic ethics with Mark Memmott on Thursday's Access Utah

"Journalist Mark Memmott was the standards and practices editor at NPR (2014-19) and played a major part in designing NPR’s code of ethics. When reporter Jack Kelley was suspected of fabricating stories at USA Today, Memmott was secretly assigned to investigate Kelley. Memmott spoke to USU’s Mass Communications Ethics class yesterday and he’ll join us today to talk about issues of media ethics, including NPR’s recent decision to permit journalists to participate in Black Lives Matter protests.

Mark Memmott is a journalist, freelance editor, and consultant. In his 40-year career he has worked for USA TODAY, NPR and The Texas Newsroom (collaboration between NPR and stations in Texas)."

International media ethics teaching award for UH Mānoa professor; University of Hawai'i News, May 19, 2021

University of Hawai'i News; International media ethics teaching award for UH Mānoa professor

"A University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa journalism professor with more than 30 years of teaching experience has been internationally recognized for outstanding classroom teaching in media ethics. Professor Ann Auman is the winner of the 2021 Teaching Excellence Award in the Media Ethics Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. The award will be formally presented to Auman at the Media Ethics Division members’ meeting on July 28.

The award committee was impressed by Auman’s work, “incorporating Indigenous values and ethics in a cross-cultural media ethics course and classroom.” Auman’s ethics courses are Communications/Journalism 460: Media Ethics and Communications 691: Emergent Media Ethics Across Cultures: Truth-Seeking in the Global, Digital Age.

“I believe that journalism can be improved if we honor Indigenous values, culture and language in storytelling. Western-based ethics codes and practices need to be reformed, and more Indigenous people should tell their own stories,” Auman said. “Everyone should practice media ethics, not just journalists. In this disinformation age we are empowered if we learn how to distinguish the truth from falsehood and deception, and be ethical producers and consumers of news and information.”

Auman also teaches courses in news literacy and multimedia journalism. Her research is in cross-cultural media ethics with a focus on Indigenous media ethics. Auman’s recent published works include, “Traditional Knowledge for Ethical Reporting on Indigenous Communities: A Cultural Compass for Social Justice” in Ethical Space: The International Journal of Media Ethics; “The Hawaiian Way: How Kuleana can Improve Journalism” in the Handbook of Global Media Ethics; and “Ethics Without Borders in a Digital Age” in Journalism & Mass Communication Educator."

Who Is The Media For? Journalist Sarah Jones On Ethics In The Industry; NPR, May 23, 2021

NPR; Who Is The Media For? Journalist Sarah Jones On Ethics In The Industry

"NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro talks with Sarah Jones about her recent essay in The Intelligencer. It's about ethics violations CNN and the AP and the two different outcomes for journalists involved."

In the age of Donald Trump, is it time to revisit media ethics?; Washington Post, 7/11/16

Robert Gebelhoff, Washington Post; In the age of Donald Trump, is it time to revisit media ethics? :

"Still, the questions the media needs to consider go beyond election coverage. How much weight should news outlets give reader interest when deciding what to cover? If a story — about Cecil the lion or the color of a dress, for example — generates a lot of discussion, is the media obligated to spend as much time on it as other, more pressing content? And if readers don’t seem to be interested in a story with substance — such as the civil war in Yemen, for example — should outlets assign it fewer resources?

These aren’t new questions by any means, but they become more important as newsrooms shrink and the demand for coverage increases. How will the changing media landscape impact the quality of content? Will important coverage fall through the cracks, especially at the local level? To what extent should consumers be held accountable for how journalism has been transformed?"