Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]


** OPINION
------------------------------------------------------------


** Trump threatens The New York Times as his press attacks continue
------------------------------------------------------------
President Donald Trump, shown here at the White House on Wednesday. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

President Donald Trump unleashed more unhinged attacks on the press Wednesday, going after both CBS’s “60 Minutes” and The New York Times — even going so far as to threaten legal action against the Times.

His “60 Minutes” attacks are nothing new. He already is suing CBS’s owner, Paramount, claiming the network deceptively edited an interview last October with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris to, in effect, help her win the election.

In a lengthy Truth Social rant ([link removed]) Wednesday morning, Trump again blasted “60 Minutes,” saying his case against the newsmagazine, CBS, and Paramount is a “true WINNER.” He added, “60 Minutes perpetrated a Giant FRAUD against the American People, the Federal Elections Commission, and the Federal Communications System.”

He then went in on The New York Times — again calling it “failing” and “fake news.” He accused Times’ journalists of having “TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, possibly to the point where the Times’ interjection makes them liable for tortious interference, including in Elections, which we are intently studying.”

Trump seemed angry over a breaking news story ([link removed]) on Tuesday in which the Times reported that Paramount appears to be making plans to settle its case with Trump. The story said, “Legal experts have called the suit baseless and an easy victory for CBS. But Paramount is entering the talks prepared to make a deal.”

Citing legal experts calling the suit “baseless and an easy victory for CBS” no doubt riled up Trump.

Mediaite’s Sarah Rumpf points out ([link removed]) what many others already have: Trump’s claims about the Harris interview are baseless. Rumpf writes, “There were edits of the kind television programs frequently make to condense for time, but Trump’s accusation that they ‘changed’ her answer simply is not true ([link removed]) . His repeated rants that the interview somehow changed the results of last November’s election are nonsensical ([link removed]) as well — he won that election.”

Rumpf adds, “Again, a long list of legal experts on both sides of the partisan political aisle have called this case baseless, and CBS and 60 Minutes have not admitted any crime or fraud. Posting something repeatedly or in all caps does not make it true.”

The fact that legal experts have, indeed, said Trump has no case brings us back to The New York Times. The Times’ line that legal experts “have called the suit baseless and an easy victory for CBS” is not about “Trump derangement syndrome” or whatever else Trump thinks. The line is absolutely true. Most believe the only reason Paramount is eager to settle the lawsuit is because it is in negotiations to be bought by Skydance, and that would ultimately require Trump to sign off on the deal.

The Times put out a statement on Wednesday, pushing back on Trump: “The New York Times will not be deterred by the administration’s intimidation tactics. We will continue to pursue the facts without fear or favor and stand up for journalists’ First Amendment right to ask questions on behalf of the American people.”

A MESSAGE FROM POYNTER
[link removed]


** Celebrating 50 years: NABJ, Poynter look ahead in special webinar
------------------------------------------------------------

The National Association of Black Journalists and the Poynter Institute are each turning 50 in 2025. As we celebrate decades of impact, we’re also looking ahead.

Join us for a special webinar ([link removed]) featuring influential leaders in news, education and media strategy as they tackle the real issues shaping journalism today.

Register now. ([link removed])


** Just another day
------------------------------------------------------------

In normal pre-Trump times, a president going after the press like this would be extraordinary. Lawsuits and banning news organizations from covering events and constant insults are not supposed to be the norm.

But what do we call these things in Trump’s world? Uh, Wednesday.

It has been this way every day since Trump took office.

The Committee to Protect Journalists’ Katherine Jacobsen has a new report out called, “Alarm bells: Trump’s first 100 days ramp up fear for the press, democracy.” ([link removed])

Jacobsen writes, “This report provides a snapshot of the Trump administration’s policies that directly affect press freedom. The fate of American democracy and journalists’ ability to work without fear are intertwined. The blitz of policy changes from the White House and its appointees set a concerning tone for local governments domestically, and authoritarian-minded rulers globally, and has deepend a climate of hostility toward journalists. CPJ is calling on the public, the media, civil society, and all branches, levels, and institutions of government – from municipalities to the U.S. Supreme Court – to safeguard press freedom to help secure the future of American democracy.”

The project is lengthy because of everything Trump has done.

CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg said in a statement, “This is a definitive moment for U.S. media and the public’s right to be informed. CPJ is providing journalists with resources at record rates so they can report safely and without fear or favor, but we need everyone to understand that protecting the First Amendment is not a choice, it’s a necessity. All our freedoms depend on it.”


** Speaking his mind
------------------------------------------------------------

It has been quite a few months for political journalist Ryan Lizza. He recently left Politico as chief Washington correspondent to start his own thing on Substack.

Before that, and this goes back a few years, he had planned to co-write a book with Olivia Nuzzi, a rising star journalist at New York magazine. Lizza and Nuzzi then got engaged, but things turned upside down last year. Nuzzi left New York magazine after it was learned she had an inappropriate online relationship with someone she had profiled — none other than then-presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Lizza and Nuzzi split, and Nuzzi requested (although later withdrew) a protective order against Lizza, alleging he had orchestrated a harassment and blackmail campaign against her — allegations that Lizza denied.

Lizza eventually stepped away from Politico, and now he has started his own Substack, writing in his initial post, “The main reason? Their style of political coverage is not meeting the unprecedented moment of democratic peril we are facing. I know that sounds dramatic, but the gap between what is actually happening in Washington and how it was being framed and reported became much too wide.”

In an interview with Columbia Journalism Review and reporter Arthur MacMillan ([link removed]) , Lizza talks about his move from Politico and plenty more, including what he thinks about press coverage these days.

But, seeing as how this is a media newsletter, one quote from Lizza really jumped out. He was talking about when he took a leave from Politico.

“Just to clarify,” Lizza said, “going on leave was a mutual decision between me and Politico, and it was the right thing to do, given the circumstances. I learned a lot, including about the press. For example, I dealt pretty extensively with every media reporter in our business, and I learned one thing that might be useful to your readers: never trust (Puck’s) Dylan Byers. He was by far the dumbest reporter that I ever dealt with. As for the rest of that bizarre episode, I’m afraid that’s a story for another day. Suffice it to say that it is the craziest experience I have ever been through in my life, and the full story is a hundred times crazier than what people know.”

For the record, CJR reached out to Byers, but Byers declined to comment.

Much of this probably goes back to a week ago when Byers wrote about Lizza leaving Politico ([link removed]) . Among what Byers wrote was, “Ryan’s feeble attempt to launch an independent journalism career with a Bari Weiss–style protest resignation was very du jour. He is not the first suddenly self-employed journalist to try to rustle up some subscription revenue by torching his or her former employer, or the mainstream media writ large. But it is most certainly not the main reason he left.”

Byers then goes into his version of what went down, including that Lizza moved over to Politico Magazine, where he could work for three months while looking for a new job. Byers wrote, “In the ideal scenario, Ryan would find a new job and leave with some dignity intact, while in the meantime producing a little more journalism that would be commensurate with his salary and allow him to move past the cloud of the Olivia drama. Alas, Ryan didn’t write anything for the magazine, and he didn’t find another job — or, at least, not one that he wanted. Instead, he decided to bite the hand that had fed him in the name of fearless journalism.”

So, yeah, some spicy stuff there.

Just a quick thought: I personally don’t know either Lizza or Byers, but I follow and respect both of them. I read Byers more regularly because he writes about the media. And, I have to say, I find Byers to be fearless and confident in his reporting, writing and analysis, and overall, pretty interesting. Certainly, Lizza wouldn’t agree with that assessment.

Meanwhile, Lizza also talks extensively — and in not great terms — about Politico, so be sure to check that.

He was asked about the best journalism he had seen over Trump’s first 100 days back in office. Lizza said, “The New York Times’ daily—hourly!—reporting about this White House. The Times is so much better than any other competitor right now that it’s a little scary. Ideally, you’d like to have multiple big outlets that are that robust. Other publications (and commentators) that have been essential are Wired, Lawfare, Techdirt, Status, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, The xxxxxx, Matt Labash’s Slack Tide, Executive Functions, Wake Up to Politics, Sam Harris, and Andrew Sullivan.”

Anyway, the whole CJR piece from MacMillan is worth your time.


** Stranger things
------------------------------------------------------------
University of North Carolina football coach Bill Belichick, shown here at a press conference in March. (AP Photo/Chris Seward)

This Bill Belichick story is getting stranger and stranger. The University of North Carolina thought it was getting a legendary coach to jump-start its football program. Instead, it’s getting a circus.

As I’ve mentioned a couple of times already in this newsletter, Belichick was interviewed ([link removed]) on last weekend’s “CBS News Sunday Morning.” During the interview, the 73-year-old Belichick was asked by correspondent Tony Dokoupil how Belichick had met his 24-year-old girlfriend, Jordon Hudson. From off camera, Hudson interrupted by saying, “We’re not talking about this.”

In a voiceover during the piece, Dokoupil said, “Jordon was a constant presence during our interview.”

The awkward moment of Hudson interrupting a veteran journalist interviewing someone who has been interviewed thousands of times went viral online and has become talk-show fodder. Apparently, it caused such a buzz that Belichick, through the University of North Carolina, put out a statement ([link removed]) Wednesday defending his girlfriend and, in turn, criticizing CBS News and Dokoupil.

Belichick started by saying the interview was supposed to “solely” focus on his new book.

Belichick then wrote, “Unfortunately, that expectation was not honored during the interview. I was surprised when unrelated topics were introduced, and I repeatedly expressed to the reporter, Tony Dokoupil, and the producers that I preferred to keep the conversation centered on the book.”

He said Hudson stepped in to refocus the conversation and keep it on track, not to avoid any topic. Belichick added, “The final eight-minute segment does not reflect the productive 35-minute conversation we had, which covered a wide range of topics related to my career. Instead, it presents selectively edited clips and stills from just a few minutes of the interview to suggest a false narrative — that Jordon was attempting to control the conversation — which is simply not true.”

First off, let’s get something straight. Belichick has been dealing with the media for decades. He is not so naive to think that a program such as “CBS News Sunday Morning” is going to do an entire profile simply helping him to promote a book. They are going to ask questions outside of that — about his career, about leaving the team he coached to six Super Bowl titles, and how he met his girlfriend. In the end, it wasn’t going to be a book reading for Belichick, but it wasn’t exactly Frost-Nixon either.

In a statement, CBS News said, “When we agreed to speak with Mr. Belichick, it was for a wide-ranging interview. There were no preconditions or limitations to this conversation. This was confirmed repeatedly with his publisher before the interview took place and after it was completed.”

I believe CBS’s statement 100%.

Yet the interview itself and the attempt at damage control now are embarrassing to the university, as well as Belichick himself. It once seemed impossible to somehow damage the legacy of a legendary coaching career, but Belichick (with the help of Hudson) is doing his best.

Meanwhile, there’s more. The University of North Carolina football team was going to be the featured team this summer on HBO’s “Hard Knocks.” That’s the show that goes inside the offseason of a football team for an insightful behind-the-scenes look as they prepare for the season. The show has been around since 2001 and has always featured an NFL team. But this year, the show was going to feature North Carolina because of Belichick.

But the plan crashed almost as soon as it started to get off the ground. What happened? The Athletic’s Matt Baker, Andrew Marchand and Brendan Marks look into it with “Bill Belichick, girlfriend ended UNC’s ‘Hard Knocks’ dalliance as fast as it began. Why?” ([link removed])

The Athletic wrote, “Jordon Hudson, Belichick’s girlfriend, played an instrumental role in stopping the production, related to her request to be heavily involved in the project, according to multiple industry sources briefed on the negotiations.”


** Media tidbits
------------------------------------------------------------
* From The New York Times with text by Damien Cave: “How Photography From the Vietnam War Changed America.” ([link removed])
* Deadline’s Ted Johnson with “Frankly, I Never Heard Of You”: A Testy Donald Trump Tussles With Terry Moran During Contentious ABC News Interview Marking POTUS’ First 100 Days.” ([link removed])
* Axios’ Kerry Flynn and Sara Fischer with “Digital creator jobs jump 7.5x since pandemic.” ([link removed])


** Hot type
------------------------------------------------------------
* The New York Times’ Ben Sisario with “Sean Combs’s Path From Harlem to Stardom, and Now Federal Court.” ([link removed])


** More resources for journalists
------------------------------------------------------------
* Gain essential skills that protect your mental health while producing nuanced coverage that serves vulnerable communities. Enroll now ([link removed]) .
* Craft your reporting into a captivating book. Apply by May 7 ([link removed]) .
* Gain the tools to identify and approach vulnerable sources. Register for our webinar ([link removed]) .
* Develop responsible AI practices for newsrooms. Start here ([link removed]) .
* Update your immigration policy expertise with Poynter's Beat Academy. Enroll now ([link removed]) .

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) .
[link removed]
Help Poynter strengthen journalism, truth and democracy. ([link removed])
GIVE NOW ([link removed])

ADVERTISE ([link removed]) // DONATE ([link removed]) // LEARN ([link removed]) // JOBS ([link removed])
Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here. ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed] mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20for%20Poynter
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
© All rights reserved Poynter Institute 2025
801 Third Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701
If you don't want to receive email updates from Poynter, we understand.
You can change your subscription preferences ([link removed]) or unsubscribe from all Poynter emails ([link removed]) .