By The Spring 2025 Media Dilemma Students
Student Journalists Should Prioritize Protecting Their Writers
By Emily Ammon
Today’s student journalists are facing one of the toughest ethical choices the industry has ever seen.
Should student journalists keep stories and names online to follow journalism rules? Or should they take things down to protect their writers from getting in trouble, like being arrested, deported, or losing job opportunities?
The answer is clear.
Student journalists must prioritize the safety and well-being of their writers over rigid traditions.
This issue exploded into national view after Rumeysa Ozturk, a graduate student at Tufts University, was detained by immigration officials simply because she had written a pro-Palestinian opinion piece.
“Ozturk’s detention shocked student journalists across the country, prompting a wave of requests from writers – especially Muslim and Palestinian students – to have their names or stories removed,” said The Guardian.
Suddenly, something that used to feel like a distant worry became a real and serious problem.
Sharing your political opinions, especially on topics like Gaza now carries serious risks.
It’s not just at Tufts.
Student editors at major universities like Columbia, NYU, and Stanford are seeing an increase in writers begging for their names or work to be taken down.
Many writers fear their political opinions will cost them job opportunities or put them in legal jeopardy. And sadly, those fears aren’t exaggerated.
Former President Trump has threatened to cut billions of dollars in funding to universities he views as supporting “pro-terrorist” groups.
Meanwhile, college newspapers like The Harvard Crimson and others have started deleting names and photos of student protesters to shield them from government retaliation.
In an ideal world, journalism would be all about transparency, honesty, and protecting the public record.
But we don’t live in an ideal world, we live in a world where a college student can end up in an immigration detention center just for writing their opinion.
“We are taught to never unpublish… but we also have a duty of care to our writers” said one editor to The Guardian.
That duty of care must come first.
Journalism classes and newsrooms talk a lot about ethics, but at the end of the day, ethics just means trying not to hurt people.
Leaving a story that could put someone’s safety or future at risk is just plain harmful.
Some people argue that changing public records is risky because once you start removing stories, it might become too easy to erase history.
That’s a legitimate concern.
But there’s a big difference between hiding public dishonesty and protecting a student who spoke out as a teenager and now faces serious threats.
Context matters. This isn’t about covering up the truth. It’s about protecting vulnerable people from a political climate that punishes dissent.
If news organizations truly care about clarity, they can explain when and why a story was changed or a name was removed.
Readers deserve to know if changes were made.
But they don’t need to know the identity of someone who could be harmed for simply exercising free speech.
Student journalists are already juggling academics, part-time jobs, and the pressure of breaking into a shrinking industry.
They should also not be forced to gamble with their classmates’ futures. Sticking to journalistic ideals doesn’t matter much if it causes real harm to people.
In today’s world, the ethical choice is the brave choice: protecting your writers.
When the risks include detention, deportation, and ruining someone’s career, protecting people should come before following tradition.
It’s time to rethink what journalistic integrity really means. It’s not just about keeping everything published at all costs.
It’s about telling the truth and standing by the people who tell it.
Blurred Lines: Sacrificing Freedom for Neutrality
By Trey Edmonds
In March 2023, the BBC became the center of public controversy after suspending Gary Lineker, a former England soccer player and presenter of the Match of the Day segment for BBC.
He was suspended because of remarks made on Twitter that were critical of the UK government’s asylum policy. Lineker compared the language used by the government to that of 1930s Germany.
These comments prompted backlash from political figures and the public. The BBC justified the suspension by pointing to its impartiality policy.
However, the ruling brought up more general issues regarding actual neutrality, freedom of speech, and the limits of journalism in the digital era.
This case raises many questions, with the main one being whether or not media personalities who interact with the public, even those who do not cover news should be held to the same impartiality standards as journalists.
Because of his prominence, the BBC claimed that Lineker had to follow its neutrality policies, even when using social media for personal purposes.
Critics, however, pointed out that Lineker is a freelance sports presenter rather than a political correspondent, raising concerns about whether holding him to such standards is appropriate.
It would be like saying an athlete on the Philadelphia Eagles couldn’t follow another sports team like the Los Angeles Lakers, which are two completely different categories.
As the BBC puts it, anyone with a large following or platform should avoid speaking about political topics, especially journalists that don’t typically cover politics.
However, the political sphere has changed significantly in the past few years. In this past election, we saw political figures utilize celebrities, artists, and influencers to their advantage in advertising.
With large audiences who use these platforms becoming eligible to vote, it wouldn’t be a surprise to see political campaigns begin tailoring these younger markets.
It’s uncommon to see a newly 18-year-old watch the news for political information.
This new voter generation will be heavily utilizing platforms like Twitter/X, Tik Tok, and Instagram as their go-to political news sources, if they’re even actively looking for that information in the first place.
Another factor that has continued to become prominent is the lack of thinking for oneself.
The number of people who put their full trust and adjust their beliefs to better align with the people they follow, the people around them, and the people they’re influenced by continues to grow yearly.
A study by the Pew Research Center found that 4 in 10 adults, mostly under 30, almost exclusively got their political information from news influencers.
Twitter/X is the most popular resting place for these news influencers at 85%, with 50% having an account on Instagram and another 44% finding a home on YouTube.
Most of these influencers have no ties to any news organization, so you can imagine the following that someone with a tie to an organization can have.
Bringing all this back to the Gary Lineker case, it’s safe to assume that Gary has a decent following on social media. As of this report, he has a massive 8.7 million followers on Twitter/X. 1.2 million followers on Instagram and his podcast on YouTube has a steady 368 thousand followers.
It’s safe to assume he gained many followers after this whole situation. Still, regardless, he certainly has a loud voice on the internet.
Many people criticized the controversy, and several shows were interrupted, with other commentators and presenters refusing to go on air in solidarity.
Most people agreed with Lineker, and many accused the BBC of bending to political pressure and enforcing its regulations unevenly. The BBC responded by reviewing its social media policies and lifting the suspension.
Thankfully, Lineker won in this case, but it does question the added responsibility that comes with having a large following.
Most wise influencers are very cautious about what they say online, not only to protect their self-image but also because of their influence over people.
However, journalists have the added task of being politically relevant to topics. They are practically forced to discuss touchy subjects that will most likely offend someone. The whole point of the job is informing; in some cases, part of the job is taking a side and sticking to it.
In this case, the question is, should Lineker have been punished for giving his opinion about the UK asylums, a subject he felt passionate about?
To answer that question, I say no.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as wild as it may be. It’s all about the audience to which you give that opinion.
Most of Gary Lineker’s followers probably follow him on his channels for his personality and who he is apart from the BBC.
The clear distinction between Gary Lineker, the BBC reporter, and Gary Lineker, the human being, is why these news stations have their own accounts to air the neutral news uninvolved in personal biases or opinions.
This incident demonstrates how, in journalism, the lines separating professional responsibilities and individual expression are becoming increasingly hazy.
Media companies must determine how to maintain editorial standards and trust while navigating the new digital world without violating people’s right to free speech.
I don’t know if Lineker has something in his bio explaining that this is his personal account separate from BBC.
If not, it is essential to distinguish between the two enabling influencers, particularly journalist influencers, to utilize their freedom of speech whilst remaining neutral and relevant at work.
The Lineker case is a perfect example of the tensions between journalistic ethics, public trust, and the ever-evolving nature of media engagement in the 21st century.
There will likely be similar cases in the future. Still, hopefully, news outlets and journalists are working together to find a happy medium between freedom of speech and institutional neutrality.
Could a Journalist Detachment Can Be a Matter of Life and Death?
By Sophia Lepore
A reporter from The Boston Globe named Kevin Cullen was on thin ice in January of 2024 having people question the journalist code of ethics. The Globe published a story following the final moments of 76-year-old Lynda Bluestein and her path to die by assisted suicide.
However, during the process of reporting this story there were some conflicts of interest that made others wonder if the outcome of Bluestein’s journey would have been different if it wasn’t for Cullen’s reporting.
Kevin Cullen a reporter for The Boston Globe was assigned to follow a 76-year-old woman named Lynda Bluestein and her journey on her wish to die by assisted suicide.
Bluestein, whose cancer was becoming insufferable with it spreading, was looking to be medically put to rest but since she lived in Connecticut and due to their laws assisted suicides are illegal, leaving her to have to look out of state to fulfill her wishes in Vermont.
It wasn’t an easy process for her, she went through a successful legal battle that eventually granted her with the permission to go through euthanasia.
Even though she was legally allowed to go through with euthanasia, Bluestein still needed to acquire two signatures in order to move forward to make sure she was in sound mind to go through with it but she needed the signatures to be from two non-family members.
Which became the next obstacle with this case considering she moved to Vermont to end her suffering, she was able to find someone from a bookstore who was willing to sign.
Then she was left with one last to and reporter Kevin Cullen who has been following her journey to write an article to share for others to read about offered to be her last signature.
The article was published on January 26th just a few weeks after Bluestein finally was able to fulfill her wishes on January 4th of 2024.
Since The Boston Globe went through with publishing this story, The Globe’s Executive Editor Nancy Barnes shared in the editor’s note how Cullen’s signature for Bluestein was a violation of
The Globe’s standards for being a part of the story he covered along with saying how after looking over the details they decided that Cullen’s signature did not affect the outcome for Bluestein’s journey considering that she would find another signature.
Barnes also explained why they decided to publish the story, “For that reason, we chose to publish this powerful story, which includes exceptional photojournalism, while also sharing these details in full transparency.”
She also recognizes in the editor’s notes that Cullen’s decision to sign is something that he now regrets doing and he still has his position at The Boston Globe he was not fired.
The main ethical issue with this is clearly the journalist Kevin Cullen involving himself in the subject matter of the story which was about Lynda Bluestein’s journey to receive assisted suicide due to her cancer diagnosis becoming terminal.
Even though The Globe made a statement claiming that after reviewing they did not believe that Cullen’s signature could have changed the outcome of the story, which I agree with whether it was Cullen’s signature, or if she found another acquaintance to sign for her the outcome of the story would have remained the same no matter what.
I do know that this story was published to raise awareness for those who may not much about euthanasia, but I do not believe that that Cullen should have crossed that line, no matter if it was coming to a good place or not, he had a job to write about Lynda Bluestein’s journey with finally finding peace after her battle with cancer, but he should have never inserted himself in the story he was working on.
However, it is important to remember that all journalists do have a code of ethics that is to avoid conflicts of interest and get involved in the story they are writing about.
“Truth or Revenge: Karen Hensel’s Conflict of Interest”
By Krayee Pour
Karen Hansel was an investigative reporter at NBC10 Boston and got fired in 2019 for not disclosing a romantic relationship with a police chief. On the surface, that seems straightforward, most companies have conflict-of-interest policies.
But then Hensel hits back with a lawsuit saying the real reason she was fired was retaliation for reporting harassment.
She also claims that men in the same newsroom had relationships they didn’t disclose and didn’t get fired for it.
Now if what she’s saying is true, that’s a big deal. Because then it’s not really about workplace rules, it’s about who gets punished for breaking them.
If male colleagues are doing the same thing and keeping their jobs, that’s textbook gender discrimination. It sends a message that women get held to stricter standards, especially when they speak up about being mistreated.
It’s the kind of story that reminds us why so many people don’t bother reporting harassment in the first place they know it could cost them their careers.
But let’s not pretend we know for sure what happened. We don’t. It’s possible this is about something else.
Maybe Karen Hensel was angry about being fired and this lawsuit is her way of getting back at the people she feels wronged her and if her claims turn out to be false, then that’s an entirely different problem.
Weaponizing discrimination claims to get even with your employer is unethical and hurts real victims who are fighting to be heard.
Either way, this whole thing opens a bigger conversation. If her accusations are true, companies need to take a hard look at how fair and consistent their policies really are, and whether women are being treated differently.
And if they’re not true, it’s a warning about how dangerous false allegations can be, and how easily trust can break down in the workplace.
No matter how it turns out, the case shows how messy things get when power, gender, and personal relationships collide.
Credibility Crisis: Recent Mistrust with The Public And Media
By William Karwoski
In recent years the trust and relationship between the public and the mainstream media has become increasingly strained, with a mark or a growing distrust which challenges the foundation of journalism.
Factors that contribute to this are things such as certain media outlets being biased often seen with political parties, the use of ai with content creation, and the rise of deep-fake technology.
These problems not only threaten the credibility of the mainstream media, it also affects the ability of the public to identify the right information from false.
One of the main sources of media distrust comes from certain outlets being more biased toward the other side.
A study conducted for the Pew Research Center highlighted that 64% of Americans believe that news outlets tend to be more bias while reporting on political problems.
With news outlets often being biased this has caused an increase in polarization of the landscape of mainstream media, where outlets cater to certain ideologies of audience members.
Outlets such as Fox News and CNN have and are often criticized for their distinctively biased reporting styles.
Which has caused many to question the integrity of their new coverage. This has caused many Americans to become disgruntled and dissatisfied due to the feeling that they are not receiving a balanced coverage with these important and major issues.
Adding on to these issues is the recent use of AI for content creation, while AI may of the possible potential to streamline media production and enhance the capabilities of reporting it also raises ethical concerns.
The use of AI by journalists can lead to a lack of accountability and transparency, when the readers of these article cannot distinguish the difference of an article written by a human or AI this will most certainly cause the decline of the trust with the media.
To add to the fire a new recent technology that can create deepfakes is raising concerns and being an alarming threat to the integrity of the media.
Deepfakes can create videos can convincingly create a portal of certain individuals such as politicians saying or doing things that they never did, which can deceive the audience and create more chaos.
An example of deepfakes occurring was in 2018 where a deepfake video was created with former president Barack Obama saying words he never spoke.
If the American people believed that video during that time how advanced is this technology now, with the ability for almost anyone to access this kind of technology this can cause a major increase of misinformation.
With the increasing amount of distrust of the media due to being biased, the rising use of AI and deep-fake technology becoming more advanced, it is crucial at this time for journalists and news organizations to adapt to these problems and rebuild the eroded relationship and trust with their audiences.
Which means they must show transparency and accountability as much as possible, so they can reclaim their role of being a credible and reliable source in a world with increasing amounts of technology that can spread misinformation.
Trump Chooses Whoever?
By Bryan Avanzato
How does Donald Trump keep upsetting people? Does him selecting journalists who are only in his favor make people more upset?
Yes! It does.
Plenty of Americans conservative or liberal are very unhappy with President Trump and that he is breaking traditions set by our earliest four fathers.
Doanld Trump had decided to choose plenty of his own journalists, and he kept out some of the major news outlets like the Associated Press (AP).
Trump wants the US journalists to be much less critical of him than they already are. So, his solution is to “hire” those in favor of him.
Trump gave Natalie Winters a spot as a journalist which is fine but it’s also not.
Winters is a Trump supporter through and through and is a Co-Host on Stephan K. Bannons podcast “War room. Winters are not the best of the best when it comes to journalism.
Many believe that her only qualification was to be a young, beautiful woman who is in favor of the 45th and 47th president.
The purpose of President Trump doing this is because he is not very favored by the media and I think that he is always finding himself under the white spotlight.
Every single day there is an article coming out to tell us that the president has done something but that happens with all presidents!
But president Trump is thinking that if he adds a journalist in favor of him, he can get better press. But is any press bad press?
Among many of the other journalists that get access to the white house because of President Trump he is in favor of some more than others.
Especially because he handpicked those that are in his group of journalists.
But Mrs. Winters doesn’t publish much and we have facts of that “Her only published piece in the high school paper was a letter to the editor in which she made the case for the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. It was not well received on the mostly liberal campus. Because of her conservative views in general and her support of Mr. Trump in particular, she was ostracized by her peers, she said” (Trunsky, 2025).
So, through all of this, the man that is in the world’s most powerful position chose whoever he wanted to be his journalists and some of them aren’t even qualified enough?
It seems like there may be some underlying problems here.
Whether you love Trump or hate him you can see right through this and question it and truly ask why is he doing this?
Fact-Check or Fuel the Fire? Journalists Face a Dilemma in Political Reporting
By Breanna Canada
During the presidential election that occurred on September 10, 2024, President Donald Trump made a shocking claim, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio were eating people’s dogs and cats.
Moderator of the election David Muir however did not let that statement stand. He immediately fact checked that statement by saying how there were no credible sources that supported that claim.
When searching for any kind of information on the internet, it is guaranteed that one can find false information.
The job of a journalist is to verify facts and dispel falsehoods. However, in the process of revealing the truth, readers also get exposed to the false claims.
For journalists, coming across false information leaves them in quite a challenging dilemma. For journalists whose main focal point is telling the truth, they often struggle with how to go about the issue of falsehoods.
Should they avoid it as a whole and allow lies to spread? Or should they correct the information without spreading it even further?
For journalists there may not be a specific response to the question at hand. Within the Ethics & Journalism article Confronting Falsehoods Carries Risk for the Press. So Does Ignoring Them. , “Brain Matters” columnist and neuroscientist Richard Sima wrote in the Washington Post that “the more we see something repeated, the more likely we are to believe it to be true.”
This idea is known as the “illusory truth effect”.
It arises from the fact that even when journalists correct misinformation, just repeating it can embed it even more into public opinion. It is a hard reality to face that forces newsrooms to think carefully about how they report public figures who usually do not tell the truth.
However, avoiding falsehoods and staying silent is not a solution either.
Within the same article from Journalism & Ethics, experts expressed how when it comes to the facts being complicated, they should explain that.
However, if they are clear, they need to be just as clear even if the allegation made is false.
The job for journalists in this case would be to respond wisely, by correcting the falsehood without giving it too much attention.
Some critics may argue that confronting falsehoods could make those lies seem more believable, and that journalists should not have to focus on correcting every false detail.
While this point may be valid due to the opinions of not all lies should be repeated or reported, journalists still need to choose carefully on how they should be about responding to the information.
But when a false statement is made by a powerful influential figure or anyone in that matter, staying silent is not a solution. The public overall deserves to know when they are being lied to.
So, in response to the question at hand about what journalists should do, they should continue to fact check.
The goal that they should accomplish is to give clear and simple corrections without repeating misleading details.
Journalism isn’t only about repeating things that people say. It is also about checking the facts and helping people find truth in all the things they find misleading.
With falsehoods continuously spreading on a day-to-day basis, journalists must continue to keep up with them while being careful about what they say.
The public deserves to know the truth. Thus, the solution at hand is to: correct the lie, but do not overplay it.
Signal-gate: Highlighting the Duties of Political Journalists
By Ryan Butler
Jeffrey Goldberg didn’t go digging for a national security scoop. It landed in his lap, through a group chat.
One mistaken tap by a senior White House official, and the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic found himself in a Signal thread with America’s top military and intelligence leaders, reading live updates about classified airstrikes in Yemen.
The leak wasn’t planned. The story wasn’t obtained secretly.
But what followed raised some valid questions about journalism: What do you do when you’re handed sensitive information you were never supposed to see? And more importantly, should you publish it?
In mid-March, a strange mistake occurred at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
Goldberg was accidentally added to a private Signal group chat by National Security Advisor Michael Waltz. The group included top officials like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
And the conversation? It wasn’t about their weekend plans. It included real-time planning and classified details surrounding airstrikes in Yemen, opinions about U.S. allies, and even the name of a covert CIA operative.
Goldberg, stunned by the messages he was suddenly reading, had a decision to make. He hadn’t sought out this information.
He hadn’t tricked anyone into revealing it. He had simply been added to the chat by mistake. But what he now had on his phone contained national security details.
He chose to publish it. First, a redacted excerpt. Then the full transcript, minus the name of the undercover officer.
The White House later confirmed the chat’s authenticity, and the national conversation quickly turned not just to what had been said, but to how it got out, and whether publishing it was the right thing to do.
For journalists, this situation lands in an ethical gray zone. The central tension is this: Just because something is true, and even newsworthy, doesn’t automatically mean it should be published.
And when it comes to private or classified communications, that becomes even more complicated.
In this case, Goldberg didn’t hack into anything or exploit a source.
He was added to the chat, likely because the group had been renamed after a previously scheduled interview, and Waltz simply selected the wrong contact.
But once Goldberg saw what he’d been given, the ethical questions came fast: Is this in the public interest? Does the public have a right to know that high-ranking officials are using disappearing-message apps to coordinate military plans? Does the accidental nature of the leak make publishing it more problematic?
Journalists’ first duty is to the truth and to the public’s interest.
If officials are making big decisions in ways that bypass oversight or accountability, that is something worth reporting.
And if they are using apps designed to delete messages after viewing, that raises further questions about transparency, record-keeping, and compliance with laws like the Federal Records Act.
A watchdog group has already filed suit over those concerns, arguing that these conversations should have been preserved.
But even if the public interest case is strong, journalists still must think carefully about harm. Could this reporting endanger lives? Could it reveal operational details that compromise missions or expose sources? Could it damage diplomatic relationships?
Goldberg’s choice to redact the name of the CIA officer suggests that he took those questions seriously.
He didn’t publish everything, even though he had access to it. That kind of restraint reflects an understanding that freedom of press comes with responsibility.
For the press, the Signal chat leak is a stark reminder that journalism isn’t just about getting scoops or being first.
It’s about judgment. Goldberg didn’t break any laws. But he did use his discretion, and that discretion is what makes an ethical journalist.
The question in today’s digital world isn’t simply “Can we publish this?” It’s, should we? And if the answer is yes, then how.
BBC Reporter Fights Lies with Lies
By Braden Travaglini
In August 2023, BBC reporter Mariana Spring launched a project that tried to illustrate, for the public and her team, how fast misinformation can spread across social media apps like Twitter, Facebook and TikTok.
Not only how fast is spreads but also how other daily users themselves sometimes can’t decipher what’s news and what’s fake news. Spring does this by creating 5 fabricated accounts with unique profiles for each of them.
For example, one of the accounts was Larry, a 71-year-old retired insurance broker and Donald Trump fan from Alabama. Another was Emma, a 21-year-old graphic designer from New York.
On top of this she builds personalities behind these profiles. For example, Emma is very liberal and is part of the LGBTQ community while another account is Gabriela, a largely apolitical independent mother into fashion and saving money from Miami.
Spring uses these “traits” as bait for social media companies. Once Spring creates these profiles, she starts liking posts within those accounts’ interests.
Spring then receives the data of what these social media companies are trying to sell back to her. “The best thing you can do is understand how this works,” Spring said. “It makes us more aware of how we’re being targeted”.
Through this research she learned that if you’re “in the middle” politically, your feed will more likely be republican content.
However, this has led the BBC and Spring herself to be subjected to legal ethical charges. In the world of journalism, it’s unethical to uncover misinformation by spreading rumors.
“We’re doing it with very good intentions because it’s important to understand what is going on” Spring said.
“By creating these false identities, she violates what I believe is a fairly clear ethical standard in journalism,” said Bob Steele, retired ethics expert for the Poynter Institute.
“We should not pretend that we are someone other than ourselves, with very few exceptions,” said Steele. Ethically as a journalist you need to be honest in your work and honest to your sources.
You need to do things ethically correctly so your sources and your audience know they can trust the information they’re being given.
“My job is to investigate misinformation and I’m setting up fake accounts, the irony is not lost on me.” Spring said.
Then ethically as a reporter Spring should know that she shouldn’t portray herself as someone she’s not.
I do understand the purpose of her plans, intentions and actions but I don’t think this strategy works for journalists because it’s ethically wrong due to their code.
You’re lying to people and companies which are wrong on more levels than just ethical, even if those companies are multi-billion-dollar operations.
I feel this is an ethical dilemma because as a reporter for a news outlet, you shouldn’t be lying and acting like someone other than yourself because it’s wrong personally, professionally and ethically to be deceitful in your work.
Ethically you should never intend a good outcome through evil actions, it’s wrong and would create a society that would be impossible to live in.
You also shouldn’t lie to your sources or the people you’re on social media with that try to interact with those fabricated profiles.
All this could lead to Spring and the BBC network facing legal and ethical charges if they are caught violating the apps community guidelines which often prohibit impersonator accounts or the creation of “bot accounts”.
However, Spring says if you want to understand this industry you have to be right on the front lines experimenting.
