More than likely, the case against former CNN news anchor Don Lemon following his arrest for joining protesters in barging into a Twin Cities church to disrupt a service a couple of weeks ago will be dismissed long before it ever makes it to trial. That is unfortunate, because I was looking to forward to the court being asked to consider a question that may need some legal interpretation in the age of social media: “Just who is a journalist?”
Lemon’s defense will likely argue that because he was live-streaming the church protest and providing his own commentary, that he was acting as a “reporter” and not a “protester”. This triggers a different set of First Amendment protections, as your right to free speech doesn’t guarantee you the right to come onto private property and keep people from exercising their First Amendment right to religious expression. But as a member of the press covering people coming onto private property to keep people from exercising their First Amendment right to religious expression, you do enjoy more legal protection.
The blurry legal distinction that would need to be hammered out in this case is whether or not Don Lemon is a “reporter”. If you watched CNN, you would say “of course Don Lemon is a reporter, he was doing TV news for years!” But you have to remember that Lemon was fired at CNN in 2024. Since then, he has started his own YouTube channel and a Substack website. But he is not credentialed by any standard news outlet–he’s just out there “doing his own thing”.
In practice, Don Lemon is no different than Nick Shirley, another YouTuber that has risen to national attention for the video he did this winter “uncovering evidence” of widespread welfare and public assistance fraud among the Somali community in the Twin Cities. And where things get sticky is that many of those defending Lemon’s actions at the Minneapolis church are also highly-critical of Shirley, stating he had no right to go to those “Learing centers” and “medical facilities” packed into warehouses because he is not a “real journalist”–he’s just a punk with a cellphone camera and some wireless microphones. Well, I hate to break it to you, but that’s all Don Lemon’s got right now too.
For years now, we have seen the rise of the “citizen journalist”. In the past, “the media” operated within the limited access afforded by print materials and the public airwaves. Those hired for those jobs usually (but not always) had degrees in journalism or related fields. They worked within a structure that included editing and fact-checking before anything was aired or published. And incorrect information was corrected in the same space that it was originally published or aired.
But the internet, social media, and the proliferation of cellphones with cameras has allowed almost everyone almost everywhere to provide “on the scene” reporting on platforms that can reach almost everybody around the world. Few, if any, of those folks have editors that review all of their work before it goes on the web. And while incorrect information is usually just deleted without acknowledgement–much of that stuff still lives on in screenshots or “the cache”.
So we now have to ask: Is everyone a journalist afforded First Amendment protections for everything that they “report”? Let’s look at a few examples and you at home can just answer to yourself.
The person that watches recorded government meetings and then posts on a blogsite basic transcripts of what was discussed, who said what, and what was the final vote on every measure. Is that person a reporter?
The people that run, and the group members that post on, Facebook scanner pages, detailing what is heard on the police and fire emergency frequencies–without any follow up on how those situations are resolved. Is that reporting?
How about “aggregator” sites that only repost stories from legacy media websites onto social media platforms. Is that a media outlet in and of itself?
What about the podcaster that occasionally has an elected official on as a guest? Does that make it a news program? Or the commercial radio talk show host that spends most of their time providing opinion and commentary–but every once in a while spills the beans on a hard news tip that is provided to them on condition of anonymity. Is that person a journalist?
If you really want to get deep into the weeds, what about websites that look exactly like legacy media sites, with bylines, photo credits, and articles featuring direct quotes from officials and newsmakers–but is funded by non-profit organizations with obvious political leanings? Are those to be considered trusted sources of news?
Is everyone that once worked for a traditional media outlet considered a reporter for the rest of their life, no matter what outlet they choose to create on their own?
I recently joined a group looking at ways to bolster local journalism in Northeast Wisconsin. As part of that effort, we worked with a local college to conduct a survey on media consumption in the region. If the preliminary results are any indication, the answer to all of the above questions I asked are “Sure, whatever”. And to make things even more concerning, today’s media consumer is more likely to choose sources they admit are less reliable and accurate, so long as their content is not behind a paywall. Let’s just say, there was not a lot of optimism coming out of that meeting.
In recent years, the media centers at places like the EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, the NFL Draft, and the Ryder Cup have become more crowded as access is granted to more “influencers”. At EAA, I’ve had to wait to use one of the radio booths while a guy with a small recorder and a couple of microphones records his two-hour “Plane Talk” podcast. Precious wi-fi bandwidth is eaten up by what I’ll describe as “Instagram models” and their team of stylists, photographers, makeup artists, and videographers editing up and posting videos of themselves standing in front of various aircraft on the grounds in staged poses (often touching or leaning on the planes–which the owners absolutely hate).
At the Draft in Green Bay last year, the guys we credentialed from our sister station KISS-FM had a viral minute after asking draft picks what songs were on their IPods, and other stations around the country picking up those responses to fit their formats. While it was certainly fun and great for exposure for us, is that really the function of a media center and press conferences at a sporting event? I also have to note that the “no rooting in the press box” rule is right out the window as well, as the hosts of the “Maize and Blue Revue” (with their 17-listeners a week) are more than happy to cheer on their Michigan Wolverines in the Camp Randall Stadium media center
And we haven’t even gotten to artificial intelligence, which gets better every day at producing videos, audio, and “reports” that look so real that even those of us that work with those media on a regular basis are finding it increasingly more difficult to recognize them as fakes. What chance does the solo YouTuber and Facebook re-poster have in determining their veracity? Of course, if the videos show what the viewer wants to see, will they really care?
For years, whenever people would ask me the type of stories I hate having to do the most, I would say city councils or county boards arguing for five hours about a non-binding referendum that one member wanted to place on the ballot in hopes that it will increase voting by members of their preferred political party in the other races. Now, it’s the “Local officials say video/stories circulating on social media are not true or are being taken out of context”. I’m not looking forward to being the guy correcting the other “reporters” regularly for stuff they keep getting wrong–with no discernible consequences.
Without full arguments and a judge’s ruling that would be afforded by a trial of Don Lemon, the terms “reporter”, “member of the media”, and “press” will remain loose and ill-defined. And anyone with a phone and a point to make can call themselves a “Journalist Protester”.
