When the White House press secretary says ‘your mom,’ it’s not a joke. It’s the message.; Poynter, October 21, 2025

 Ren LaForme, Amaris Castillo and TyLisa Johnson, Poynter; When the White House press secretary says ‘your mom,’ it’s not a joke. It’s the message.

"Late last week, after President Donald Trump said he would meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Budapest to discuss Russia’s war in Ukraine, HuffPost correspondent S.V. Dáte reached out to the White House with a straightforward question: Who picked Budapest?

In 1994, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine and Russia met in Budapest, where Ukraine agreed to give up the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for Russia’s promise to respect its sovereignty and existing borders, and to refrain from using force or coercion against it. Given that context, the choice of Budapest struck some as tone-deaf.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded, but not with an explanation. Instead, she replied: “Your mom did.” She later posted a screenshot of the exchange on X, called Dáte “a left-wing hack” and said he masquerades as a real reporter.

It’s another breach of the professionalism that once defined interactions between reporters and the White House, even in moments of tension. Every administration has had its spats with the press — Richard Nixon’s enemies list, Barack Obama’s leak prosecutions, Joe Biden’s limited-access strategy — but Trump’s team has turned that antagonism into a communications strategy.

Since January, the White House has taken direct control of the press pool from the White House Correspondents’ Association, censored pool reports before release, eliminated a wire reporter’s pool slot and reassigned the traditional first questions in briefings to friendly outlets. It has removed journalists from the president’s travel pool and restricted access to events that had long been open to the full press corps. (See our Press Freedom Watch for a running list of such incidents).

When a press secretary can respond to a reporter’s question with “your mom” and post it proudly online, it’s not a slip of decorum. It’s the message."

Cornhusker copyright? Getting the facts on the name of Nebraska's new ICE detention facility; KETV, August 20, 2025

  

Waverle Monroe, KETV; Cornhusker copyright? Getting the facts on the name of Nebraska's new ICE detention facility

[Kip Currier: How crass and unnecessarily demeaning it is for ICE to use the name Cornhusker Clink to refer to a detention facility. This administration, unsurprisingly given its past actions, continues to be more focused on alliterative branding and merchandising opportunities (recall Alligator Alcatraz) than modeling professionalism in the ways it communicates a commitment to treating all detainees with dignity and respect.]

[Excerpt]

"The U.S. Department of Homeland Security dubbed the new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility as the "Cornhusker Clink." 

You can't hear the word Cornhusker without thinking of the University of Nebraska.

Many on social media questioned the legality of using the name Cornhusker for the facility. Now KETV is helping you get the facts."

The Power of Three: Civility, Professionalism, and Zealous Advocacy; ABA Journal, November 5, 2024

 Jeanne M Huey, ABA Journal; The Power of Three: Civility, Professionalism, and Zealous Advocacy

"Balancing Civility, Professionalism, and Zealous Advocacy

 The “power of three” reminds us that civility, professionalism, and zealous advocacy are not competing ideals but instead work together to define our duty to our clients, our duty to the justice system, and our duty to respect others, which is the mark of effective lawyering. Zealous advocacy without civility leads to unproductive conflict, while civility without zeal risks losing sight of the client’s interests. Professionalism embraces both, ensuring that civility and advocacy serve the client and the justice system. A balanced commitment to all three creates a steady, resilient structure that upholds a lawyer’s duty to serve their client’s best interests within the rule of law."

A matter of ethics; BC News, April 2021

Phil Gloudemans , BC News; 

A matter of ethics

BC undergraduates advanced to the finals at the 25th annual Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl

"“The format of the Ethics Bowl is unique from other debate-style competitions in that teams are scored based on how well they consider the merit of all sides of an argument,” said team member Angela McCarthy ’21, president of the student-organized Bioethics Society of Boston College. “The spirit of the Ethics Bowl encourages respectful deliberation over some of the most controversial issues of our time. Instead of encouraging an ‘us versus them mentality,’ it promotes productive conversations about controversial issues.”

“I was so proud to see their preparation pay off in their performance at nationals,” said BC team coach Katie Rapier, an assistant professor of philosophy. “The students responded to their opponents and the judges with both professionalism and finesse, and a robust understanding of the material through clear explanations and compelling arguments.  I was thrilled to see such a rich display of learning and skill from our students.”

In advance of competition, each team receives a set of APPE-written cases that explore a variety of topics within practical and professional ethics that could range from cheating and plagiarism, dating and friendships, to free speech, gun control or professional principles in medicine, engineering, or law.  

Teams prepare an analysis of each case, and during a match, a case is randomly selected from the set, and teams have three minutes to huddle before giving a 10-minute presentation.  A moderator poses questions designed to delve deeper into the case’s multiple ethical dimensions.

A panel of judges then probes the teams for further justifications and evaluates their answers. Rating criteria are based on intelligibility, focus on ethically relevant considerations, avoidance of ethical irrelevance, and deliberative thoughtfulness. Teams cannot bring notes or confer with coaches...

Senior philosophy major Caroline Gillette focused on two cases that dealt with the ethics of moderating content on social media, both offensive speech and misinformation."

Jill Abramson Plagiarized My Writing. So I Interviewed Her About It; Rolling Stone, February 13, 2019

Jake Malooley, Rolling Stone;

Jill Abramson Plagiarized My Writing. So I Interviewed Her About It

When journalist Jake Malooley talked to the former New York Times executive editor, she admitted only to minor mistakes — but her responses were revealing

[Kip Currier: In yesterday's Information Ethics class session, looking at Plagiarism, Attribution, and Research Integrity and Misconduct, we explored this illuminating 2/13/19 interview of Jill Abramson--veteran journalist and the former first-ever female Executive Editor of The New York Times from 2011 until her firing in 2014--by Rolling Stone reporter Jake Malooley.

I also played the first ten minutes of a 2/20/19 radio interview of Abramson by WNYC's Brian Lehrer, in which Abramson fields questions from Lehrer about her ongoing plagiarism controversy and research/writing process.

The Abramson plagiarism controversy is a rich ripped-from-the-headlines case study, emphasizing the importance and implications of plagiarism and research integrity and misconduct. Imagine being in Abramson's Harvard University class this term, where the 1976 Harvard FAS alumna is teaching an Introduction to Journalism course...

Speaking of Harvard, The Harvard Crimson has an interesting 2/15/19 article on the continuing Abramson controversy, as well as prior instances of alleged plagiarism by a trio of prestigious Harvard professors in the early 2000's, who, following investigations, "faced no public disciplinary action": Current Policy, Past Investigations Offer Window Into Harvard’s Next Steps In Abramson Plagiarism Case]

"In the days that followed, Abramson gave interviews to Vox and CNN. She unconvincingly sidestepped definitions of plagiarism upheld by the Times and Harvard, contending she is guilty of little more than sloppiness. She also claimed Vice is “waging an oppo campaign” against her book. Amid all the equivocation and attempts to duck the plagiarist label, Abramson still had not sufficiently explained how my writing and that of several other journalists ended up running nearly word-for-word in her book. I didn’t feel personally aggrieved, as some colleagues believed I rightfully should. But I did think I was owed straight answers. So late last week, I requested an interview with Abramson through Simon & Schuster, the publisher of Merchants of Truth.

On Monday afternoon, Abramson phoned me from Harvard’s campus, where she would be teaching an introduction to journalism seminar. According to the syllabus for Abramson’s Spring 2019 workshop “Journalism in the Age of Trump,” a copy of which a student, Hannah Gais, tweeted, Merchants of Truth is assigned as required reading...

This interview has been condensed for length.

Correction: This article previously stated that Abramson was on her way to her Spring 2019 workshop, “Journalism in the Age of Trump.” It has been corrected to clarify that she was on her way to an introduction to journalism class."