Can You Believe the Documentary You’re Watching?; The New York Times, November 18, 2025

Alissa Wilkinson , The New York Times; Can You Believe the Documentary You’re Watching?

"Like a surging viral outbreak, A.I.-generated video has suddenly become inescapable. It’s infiltrated our social feeds and wormed its way into political discourse. But documentarians have been bracing for impact since before most of us even knew what the technology could do.

Documentaries fundamentally traffic in issues of truth, transparency and trust. If they use so-called synthetic materials but present them as if they’re “real,” it’s not just a betrayal of the tacit contract between filmmaker and audience. The implications are far broader, and far more serious: a century of shared history is in jeopardy.

At a time when the idea of facts and shared reality is assaulted from every side, the turning point has arrived. The stakes couldn’t be higher. And we all need to pay attention."

Congress to send bill to Trump to force disclosure of Jeffrey Epstein files; The Washington Post, November 18, 2025

Kadia Goba

, 

Amy B Wang

 and 

Theodoric Meyer

, The Washington Post; Congress to send bill to Trump to force disclosure of Jeffrey Epstein files

"Congress was poised Tuesday to send a bill to President Donald Trump to force the Justice Department to release files related to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, overcoming a months-long impasse in the House and quickly dispatching with the issue in the Senate.

Hours after the bill passed the House on a 427-1 vote, the Senate agreed to deem the legislation passed as soon as it arrives from the House. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) offered a motion that received unanimous consent and will require no further action by the chamber."

Trump Ramps Up Pressure on G.O.P. to Thwart Epstein Vote; The New York Times, November 12, 2025

Annie Karni and Devlin Barrett, The New York Times ; Trump Ramps Up Pressure on G.O.P. to Thwart Epstein Vote

[Kip Currier: What and who is in the Epstein files that the Trump administration doesn't want us to see?

Why are Trump 2.0 and the GOP desperate to impede the release of the Epstein files?

What do they fear will be revealed?

What do they think the consequences may be if the American people finally know the contents of these documents?

Does this look like normal behavior if there really is "nothing to see" in these files?

If someone in your own personal or professional life were engaging in these kinds of tactics to hide records would it raise your suspicions?

What can and will be done to attain transparency of these records?]

[Excerpt]

"President Trump and his administration on Wednesday ramped up a pressure campaign on congressional Republicans who are pushing for a full release of the Justice Department’s files about the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, rushing to head off a House vote on the matter."

To Preserve Records, Homeland Security Now Relies on Officials to Take Screenshots; The New York Times, November 6, 2025

Minho Kim , The New York Times; To Preserve Records, Homeland Security Now Relies on Officials to Take Screenshots

[Kip Currier: This new discretionary DHS records policy is counter to sound ethics practices and democracy-centered values.

Preservation of records promotes transparency, the historical record, accountability, access to information, informed citizenries, the right to petition one's government, free and independent presses, and more. The new DHS records policy undermines all of the above.]

[Excerpt]

"The Department of Homeland Security has stopped using software that automatically captured text messages and saved trails of communication between officials, according to sworn court statements filed this week.

Instead, the agency began in April to require officials to manually take screenshots of their messages to comply with federal records laws, citing cybersecurity concerns with the autosave software.

Public records experts say the new record-keeping policy opens ample room for both willful and unwitting noncompliance with federal open records laws in an administration that has already shown a lack of interest in, or willingness to skirt, records laws. That development could be particularly troubling as the department executes President Trump’s aggressive agenda of mass deportations, a campaign that has included numerous accusations of misconduct by law enforcement officials, the experts said.

“If you are an immigration official or an agent and believe that the public might later criticize you, or that your records could help you be held accountable, would you go out of the way to preserve those records that might expose wrongdoing?” said Lauren Harper, who advocates government transparency at the Freedom of the Press Foundation."

Elon Musk launches encyclopedia ‘fact-checked’ by AI and aligning with rightwing views; The Guardian, October 28, 2025

Chris Michael, The Guardian ; Elon Musk launches encyclopedia ‘fact-checked’ by AI and aligning with rightwing views

"Elon Musk has launched an online encyclopedia named Grokipedia that he said relied on artificial intelligence and would align more with his rightwing views than Wikipedia, though many of its articles say they are based on Wikipedia itself.

Calling an AI encyclopedia “super important for civilization”, Musk had been planning the Wikipedia rival for at least a month. Grokipedia does not have human authors, unlike Wikipedia, which is written and edited by volunteers in a transparent process. Grokipedia said it is “fact-checked” by Grok, Musk’s AI chatbot.

Musk said the idea was suggested by the Trump administration’s AI and cryptocurrency czar, David Sacks.

Musk has frequently attacked Wikipedia for citing reporting by the New York Times and NPR, and regularly lambasts what he calls the “mainstream media” in an effort to encourage people to rely on X, formerly Twitter, the social media site he owns and which he has programmed to encourage the domination of conservative and far-right voices, including his own.

Grokipedia’s entries appear to hew closely to conservative talking points. For example, its entry for the January 6 insurrection on the Capitol cites “widespread claims of voting irregularities” – a lie pushed by Donald Trump and his allies to delegitimize Joe Biden’s victory in 2020 – and downplays Trump’s own role in inciting the riot."

Pentagon plans widespread random polygraphs, NDAs to stanch leaks; The Washington Post, October 1, 2025

 

Alex Horton

, 

Tara Copp

 and 

Ellen Nakashima

, The Washington Post; Pentagon plans widespread random polygraphs, NDAs to stanch leaks

"The Pentagon plans to impose strict nondisclosure agreements andrandom polygraph testing for scores of people in its headquarters, including many top officials, according to two people familiar with the proposal and documents obtained by The Washington Post, escalating Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s war on leakers and internal dissent.

All military service members, civilian employees and contract workers within the office of the defense secretary and the Joint Staff, estimated to be more than 5,000 personnel, would be required to sign a nondisclosure agreement that “prohibits the release of non-public information without approval or through a defined process,” according to a draft memo from Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg...

More recently, the Pentagon has issued a requirement that reporters covering the military sign an agreement not to solicit or gather any information — even unclassified — that hasn’t been expressly authorized for release, the penalty for which could be press credential revocation. Reporters have until later this month to agree to those terms."

Lawmakers Across the Country This Year Blocked Ethics Reforms Meant to Increase Public Trust; ProPublica, October 1, 2025

Gabriel Sandoval, ProPublica, with additional reporting by Nick Reynolds and Anna Wilder, The Post and Courier; Yasmeen Khan, The Maine Monitor; Lauren Dake, Oregon Public Broadcasting; Marjorie Childress, New Mexico In Depth; Louis Hansen, Virginia Center for Investigative Journalism at WHRO; Mary Steurer and Jacob Orledge, North Dakota Monitor; Kate McGee, The Texas Tribune; Alyse Pfeil, The Advocate | The Times-Picayune; and Shauna Sowersby, The Seattle Times , ProPublica; Lawmakers Across the Country This Year Blocked Ethics Reforms Meant to Increase Public Trust

"At a time when the bounds of government ethics are being stretched in Washington, D.C., hundreds of ethics-related bills were introduced this year in state legislatures, according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures’ ethics legislation database. While legislation strengthening ethics oversight did pass in some places, a ProPublica analysis found lawmakers across multiple states targeted or thwarted reforms designed to keep the public and elected officials accountable to the people they serve.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers tried to push through bills to tighten gift limits, toughen conflict-of-interest provisions or expand financial disclosure reporting requirements. Time and again, the bills were derailed.

With the help of local newsrooms, many of which have been part of ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network, we reviewed a range of legislation that sought to weaken or stymie ethics regulations in 2025. We also spoke to experts for an overview of trends nationwide. Their take: The threats to ethics standards and their enforcement have been growing.

“Donald Trump has been ushering a new cultural standard, in which ethics is no longer significant,” said Craig Holman, a veteran government ethics specialist with the progressive watchdog nonprofit Public Citizen. He pointed to Trump’s private dinner with top buyers of his cryptocurrency and the administration’s tariff deal with Vietnam after it greenlit the Trump Organization’s $1.5 billion golf resort complex; and he said in an email it was “most revealing” that the White House “for the first time in over 16 years has no ethics policy. Trump 2.0 simply repealed Biden’s ethics Executive Order and replaced it with nothing.”

AI could never replace my authors. But, without regulation, it will ruin publishing as we know it; The Guardian, September 18, 2025

Jonny Geller, The Guardian ; AI could never replace my authors. But, without regulation, it will ruin publishing as we know it

[Kip Currier: This is a thought-provoking piece by literary agent Jonny Geller. He suggests an "artists’ rights charter for AI that protects two basic principles: permission and attribution". His charter idea conveys some aspects of the copyright area called "moral rights".

Moral rights provide copyright creators with a right of paternity (i.e. attribution) and a right of integrity. The latter can enable creators to exercise some levels of control over how their copyrighted works can be adapted. The moral right of integrity, for example, was an argument in cases involving whether black and white films (legally) could be or (ethically) should be colorized. (See Colors in Conflicts: Moral Rights and the Foreign Exploitation of Colorized U.S. Motion Pictures) Moral rights are not widespread in U.S. copyright law because of tensions between the moral right of integrity and the right of free expression/free speech under the U.S. Constitution (whose September 17, 1787 birthday was yesterday). The Visual Artists Rights Act (1990) is a narrow example of moral rights under U.S. copyright law.

To Geller's proposed Artists' Rights Charter for AI I'd suggest adding the word and concept of "Responsibilities". Compelling arguments can be made for providing authors with some rights regarding use of their copyrighted works as AI training data. And, commensurately, persuasive arguments can be made that authors have certain responsibilities if they use AI at any stage of their creative processes. Authors can and ethically should be transparent about how they have used AI, if applicable, in the creation stages of their writing.

Of course, how to operationalize that as an ethical standard is another matter entirely. But just because it may be challenging to initially develop some ethical language as guidance for authors and strive to instill it as a broad standard doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted or done.]

[Excerpt]

"The single biggest threat to the livelihood of authors and, by extension, to our culture, is not short attention spans. It is AI...

As a literary agent and CEO of one of the largest agencies in Europe, I think this is something everyone should care about – not because we fear progress, but because we want to protect it. If you take away the one thing that makes us truly human – our ability to think like humans, create stories and imagine new worlds – we will live in a diminished world.

AI that doesn’t replace the artist, or that will work with them transparently, is not all bad. An actor who is needed for reshoots on a movie may authorise use of the footage they have to complete a picture. This will save on costs, the environmental impact and time. A writer may wish to speed up their research and enhance their work by training their own models to ask the questions that a researcher would. The translation models available may enhance the range of offering of foreign books, adding to our culture.

All of this is worth discussing. But it has to be a discussion and be transparent to the end user. Up to now, work has simply been stolen and there are insufficient guardrails on the distributors, studios, publishers. As a literary agent, I have a more prosaic reason to get involved – I don’t think it is fair for someone’s work to be taken without their permission to create an inferior competitor.

What can we do? We could start with some basic principles for all to sign up to. An artists’ rights charter for AI that protects two basic principles: permission and attribution."

World Meeting on Human Fraternity: Disarming words to disarm the world; Vatican News, September 13, 2025

Roberto Paglialonga, Vatican News ; World Meeting on Human Fraternity: Disarming words to disarm the world

[Kip Currier: There is great wisdom and guidance in these words from Pope Leo and Fr. Enzo Fortunato (highlighted from this Vatican News article for emphasis):

“Pope Leo XIV’s words echo: ‘Before being believers, we are called to be human.’” Therefore, Fr. Fortunato concluded, we must “safeguard truth, freedom, and dignity as common goods of humanity. That is the soul of our work—not the defense of corporations or interests.”"

What is in the best interests of corporations and shareholders should not -- must not -- ever be this planet's central organizing principle.

To the contrary, that which is at the very center of our humanity -- truth, freedom, the well-being and dignity of each and every person, and prioritization of the best interests of all members of humanity -- MUST be our North Star and guiding light.]

[Excerpt]

"Representatives from the world of communication and information—directors and CEOs of international media networks— gathered in Rome for the “News G20” roundtable, coordinated by Father Enzo Fortunato, director of the magazine Piazza San Pietro. The event took place on Friday 12 September in the Sala della Protomoteca on Rome's Capitoline Hill. The participants addressed a multitude of themes, including transparency and freedom of information in times of war and conflict: the truth of facts as an essential element to “disarm words and disarm the world,” as Pope Leo XIV has said, so that storytelling and narrative may once again serve peace, dialogue, and fraternity. They also discussed the responsibility of those who work in media to promote the value of competence, in-depth reporting, and credibility in an age dominated by unchecked social media, algorithms, clickbait slogans, and rampant expressions of hatred and violence from online haters.

Three pillars of our time: truth, freedom, Dignity

In opening the workshop, Father Fortunato outlined three “pillars” that can no longer be taken for granted in our time: truth, freedom, and dignity. Truth, he said, is “too often manipulated and exploited,” and freedom is “wounded,” as in many countries around the world “journalists are silenced, persecuted, or killed.” Yet “freedom of the press should be a guarantee for citizens and a safeguard for democracy.” Today, Fr. Fortunato continued, “we have many ‘dignitaries’ but little dignity”: people are targeted by “hate and defamation campaigns, often deliberately orchestrated behind a computer screen. Words can wound more than weapons—and not infrequently, those wounds lead to extreme acts.” Precisely in a historical period marked by division and conflict, humanity—despite its diverse peoples, cultures, and opinions—is called to rediscover what unites it. “Pope Leo XIV’s words echo: ‘Before being believers, we are called to be human.’” Therefore, Fr. Fortunato concluded, we must “safeguard truth, freedom, and dignity as common goods of humanity. That is the soul of our work—not the defense of corporations or interests.”"

‘Public health is in trouble,’ says high-ranking CDC leader who resigned in protest; PBS News, August 28, 2025

Amna Nawaz, Aznar Merchant , PBS News; ‘Public health is in trouble,’ says high-ranking CDC leader who resigned in protest

"Amna Nawaz:

• So let's just start with your decision. Why did you feel the need to resign?

• Dr. Debra Houry:

  It was such a tough decision. I love the CDC. The work we do is so important.

  But I had just felt we had reached a tipping point when it came to our science and our data and being able to do the work we needed to do. I was concerned about the future of CDC and my ability to be a leader at the CDC and to do what was needed to be done on the inside. I thought my voice and the voice of my colleagues that also resigned with me would be more powerful on the outside.

• Amna Nawaz:

  What does reaching that tipping point, as you put it, mean to you?

  You saw Dr. Monarez's lawyers reference the unscientific and reckless directives. What does that mean to you?

  • Dr. Debra Houry:

    Yes, so we have an immunization committee meeting coming up in a few weeks. And many of us, myself included, were concerned about some of the recommendations might walk back vaccines in our country.

    To me, that's one of the tipping points. I think another tipping point is just the loss of Dr. Monarez. We hadn't had a CDC director for several months. When she came on board, she brought scientific rigor and some new ideas around public comment and how to really make sure data drove the decisions.

    When she had done some of these changes, she was brought to the secretary's office for discussion. And, at that point, I became concerned that she wouldn't be able to implement changes that were needed at CDC, and without that leadership, it would just leave us vulnerable again. And I thought that was the point to say, enough is enough and to really raise that Bat Signal that public health and CDC is in trouble.

    
    

    • Amna Nawaz:

      You have also said previously that her firing makes it easier for Secretary Kennedy's appointees to change vaccine recommendations. You just mentioned fearing a walk-back in some of those vaccine policies.

      What does that mean specifically? What could we see ahead?

    • Dr. Debra Houry:

      So, if we don't have a CDC director, and if there's not an acting CDC director, then the secretary would sign recommendations like he did for the last ACIP, or vaccine committee, meeting.

      So things like the COVID vaccine or hepatitis B vaccine, they could choose to change ages on it or the populations that have access to it. I'm just concerned about changing vaccine access in our country and that we need to focus more on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, shared decision-making around vaccines, and not talking about misinformation around vaccines.

      
      

      • Amna Nawaz:

        And changes to things like the hepatitis B vaccine, are those conversations you were a part of during your time there? Those are being discussed?

      • Dr. Debra Houry:

        So I know that the work groups have been asked to look at hepatitis B. They're in the middle of pulling a systematic review together right now.

        So I would imagine that means they will be discussed. My concern is, we have pulled evidence reviews together before for the ACIP meetings, that we had one that was pulled down and not discussed. I think it's really important when we do work at CDC for our data, our science and our evidence reviews to be publicly posted, so the public can also review them and understand.

        And, to me, that is transparency and something we were trying to move towards, particularly with the secretary's commitment to radical transparency. That would mean having publicly available data and documents."

After years of lap-dog performances, Oklahoma’s Ethics Commission has finally found its bite; Oklahoma Voice, August 4, 2025

Janelle Specklein , Oklahoma Voice; After years of lap-dog performances, Oklahoma’s Ethics Commission has finally found its bite

"Hats off to the Oklahoma Ethics Commission, which over the course of the past few months has seemingly transformed itself from a toothless shih tzu into an aggressive, but well-trained pitbull that’s going for the jugular.

For years, the agency and its governing board inspired about as much fear as a cute baby bunny would into the state employees, lobbyists and political candidates that they were supposed to hold accountable. 

The body had also demonstrated a propensity for secrecy, which kept the public in the dark about what they were doing. In 2023, Attorney General Gentner Drummond accused the public board of violating the state Open Meeting Act by discussing the candidate qualifications and details of the search process for their next executive director behind closed doors.

But in recent months something — or someone — has knocked the board’s rose-colored glasses askew, and politicians, lobbyists and statewide political campaigns have been in for a rude awakening. Democrats and Republicans are suddenly discovering they’re dealing with a board that has plenty of teeth and is willing to fight for Oklahomans, consequences be damned.

It’s been an inspiring sight to behold following years of lackluster performance.

In the past few months, Republican State Superintendent Ryan Walters agreed to pay an $18,300 settlement in connection with an improper transfer of funds for a school board election in Jenks and a $5,000 penalty for using his state social media account for personal reasons. Shelley Zumwalt, who once served as a Cabinet secretary for Gov. Kevin Stitt, agreed to pay a $20,000 fine and not to hold any position funded with state dollars for two years to resolve an ethics case involving contracts awarded to a firm her husband worked at. The Commission entered into a settlement agreement with Rep. Ajay Pittman, D-Oklahoma City, to pay the agency $35,000 for a variety of ethics issues related spending campaign funds.

Earlier this month, the Commission disclosed that they’re planning to open another formal investigation into Pittman and will pursue the case in court after she missed payments.

They’ve also disclosed that they’re pursuing a case against the Gamefowl Commission on accusations that it violated financial disclosure rules. The group had been lobbying to reduce the penalty for cockfighting from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Oklahomans appear to finally have the type of board they’ve long deserved and hoped for since 1990 when they voted to create the Ethics Commission and enshrine it into the state’s Constitution so that lawmakers couldn’t abolish it."

Comply to Fly? How Airport Travelers Experience TSA’s Facial Recognition Experiment; Algorithmic Justice League, July 29, 2025

Algorithmic Justice League; Comply to Fly? How Airport Travelers Experience TSA’s Facial Recognition Experiment

"TSA is expanding its facial recognition program to airports across the United States, yet little information is known about how travelers are experiencing the program. The Algorithmic Justice League launched the TSA Scorecard to conduct the first comprehensive study based on travelers' experiences with airport face scans, and the results are ready to share!

“Comply to Fly? How Airport Travelers Experience TSA’s Facial Recognition Experiment” by Dr. Joy Buolamwini, Sushma Raman, and Andrea Dean gives the traveling public, policymakers, and agency officials missing insights on the real-world impact of facial recognition technologies in US airports. Two years of real traveler feedback on TSA’s facial recognition experiment revealed concerning gaps in the program’s transparency, travelers’ ability to consent, and the treatment of travelers by TSA agents. Key takeaways: 🔍 Many travelers across 91 US airports experience the TSA Facial Recognition Program as mandatory, even though it’s presented by agency officials as voluntary. 🔍 Informed Consent is not consistently achieved by the TSA Facial Recognition Program - many travelers are not informed they can opt out and/or given the opportunity to do so. 🔍 Some travelers face verbal abuse, hostile body language, increased scrutiny, and other injuries to dignity and respect when attempting to opt out. Download the full report to learn more ➡️ www.ajl.org/flyreport "