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.
By Ren LaForme, managing editor
It’s poop
Millions rallied against the Trump administration at “No Kings” protests across the country on Saturday. In response, President Trump posted an AI-generated video of himself boarding a fighter jet and dropping excrement on protesters.
The headline on Rex Huppke’s USA Today column says it all: “Trump posts AI video of him dumping poop on us. I can't believe I wrote that.”
As gross as that is, at least Huppke had the guts to say it. As 404 Media’s Samantha Cole pointed out, many outlets couldn’t — or wouldn’t — describe the video for what it was.
- The Hill: “brown liquid” and “what looked like feces”
- The Guardian: “brown sludge” and “bursts of brown matter”
- The New York Times: “brown liquid”
- NBC News: “what appeared to be feces”
- Axios: “suspect brown substances falling from the sky”
The old standard for profanity was that if the president said it, you could print it. Maybe it’s time to apply that logic to imagery, too.
By Ren LaForme, managing editor
Public editors once kept big newsrooms honest. Can a local version do the same for an entire city?
Just when journalism might need public editors most, almost none remain. Once a fixture at major news organizations, public editors — also called ombudsmen — served as independent bridges between newsrooms and the people those newsrooms covered. They explained editorial decisions, investigated reader complaints and held journalists accountable to their audiences.
Even as trust in the media has eroded, the role has largely vanished from newsrooms.
Now, Poynter is bringing that idea back, this time at the local level. The Indianapolis public editor will test whether independent accountability can help rebuild trust in local news.
Leading the project is Kelly McBride, Poynter’s senior vice president and chair of its Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership. McBride also serves as NPR’s public editor and previously held the same role at ESPN. I spoke with her about why Indianapolis was chosen, what success looks like and how a local public editor might help restore faith in journalism.
Ren LaForme: Thanks for catching up with me about this project, Kelly. First of all, let me ask a question that I suspect I know the answer to: Where did all the public editors go?
Kelly McBride: The same place that all the copy editors, theater critics and restaurant reviewers went, to that gritty news bar in the great beyond. Seriously though, it was an easy position to cut as newspaper profits declined. It was only the biggest markets that had public editors, or ombudsman, as they were called back in the day.
LaForme: Figured as much. Even as overall trust in media declines, local journalists still enjoy a stronger bond with their audiences. How can a local public editor strengthen that connection and help rebuild trust more broadly?
McBride: People trust their local news providers because the stories they read and hear are more likely to reflect the reality they live every day. Not completely. But when you live in the Midwest, sometimes the news coming out of New York or Washington seems out of touch.
That said, news consumers know very little about their local news providers. They don’t know which companies own the TV stations or the local paper. When a new newsroom starts publishing, it’s not always clear who is funding it or what the business model is.
Public editors do a lot of explanatory work, describing how and why journalists tell certain stories and why they don’t tell other stories. This will deepen trust by making consumers a bit wiser about where to turn.
LaForme: Earlier this year, our late colleague Rick Edmonds described “news rainforests” — communities that defy the trend of news deserts. Indianapolis made his list. How much did that strong local media ecosystem influence your decision to start the project there?
McBride: As I envisioned this pilot project, I looked for a market with a healthy amount of news so the public editor can compare and contrast. There’s a lot going on in Indianapolis journalism, so much so that I expect many people who live in the market don’t completely understand every outlet.
While I picked Indianapolis before the Nexstar and Tegna companies announced their planned merger, that shakeup will certainly be of interest to the people who live there.
LaForme: This public editor is a bit unusual in that they will watch over several news outlets. How will the Indianapolis public editor interact with newsrooms?
McBride: Traditionally public editors work for a single newsroom. That gets annoying for the journalists in that newsroom, because they are subject to scrutiny that their competitors escape. I like this model better because it takes a holistic approach to the media ecosystem. In Indianapolis, the public editor will describe and analyze the entire market, answering questions from the audience about their needs.
LaForme: What will success look like for this pilot? Is the goal to create a model that can expand to other cities if it proves effective?
McBride: The first level is just reaching the audience and educating them about their local media ecosystem. Next-level success is a more news literate group of consumers who can identify which newsrooms are good at specific categories of news coverage.
By Ren LaForme, managing editor
CBS employees get memo about new ombudsman