The Arrests of Don Lemon and Georgia Fort Raise Broader Questions
The arrests of Don Lemon and Georgia Fort raise serious questions. Arresting journalists is a serious issue – especially since the profession is protected by the First Amendment. The cases brought against Lemon and Fort could be dismissed — or, in the other extreme, they could wind up in jail for a short period. The justification in the cases of Lemon and Fort will eventually be determined by a court of law.
The cases raise a number of questions, however. Were Lemon and Fort journalists who were operating as activists or more importantly, were they journalists at all. In the days of Internet commentaries, YouTube channels and podcasts, many claim to be so-called “independent journalists.” But is that a valid claim?
There was a time — not that long ago — when journalism was a profession. Not a hobby. Not a branding exercise. Not a TikTok persona. It was a profession with college degrees and official press credentials.
Real journalists had editors, codes of ethics, and consequences for getting things wrong. They carried press credentials issued by actual news organizations, not printed at home on glossy cardstock. They were trained, vetted, and held to standards. That is not to say that they were always good journalists, or ethical in their reporting. But at least they were officially recognized as journalists.
Today? If you own a smartphone and can rant into a camera, congratulations — you can call yourself an “independent journalist.” That makes about as much sense as a person declaring him or herself to be a doctor or a lawyer.
The Lemon–Fort Cases
The arrests of Don Lemon and Georgia Fort — two people who come from very different corners of the media universe — highlight the same underlying issue. Who gets to claim the constitutional protections afforded to the press?
Lemon comes from the legacy-media world — big networks, big budgets, big platforms. He was a journalist for many years. But is he still a working journalist – without credentials or affiliation to a recognized news service?
Fort represents the new wave of activist journalists — self‑branded, self‑published, but no credentials or affiliation. Is she really a journalist in a constitutional sense?
Both call themselves journalists. Both expect the legal and constitutional privileges that come with that title. But the public is left wondering — Is journalism a profession or a masquerade? To be sure, they both have a constitutional right of free speech, but perhaps not the special rights afforded real journalists.
The Collapse of the Gatekeepers
For most of American history, journalism had gatekeepers. Newspapers, radio stations, and TV networks decided who was a reporter. They issued the credentials. They enforced standards. They fired people who violated them. They may not always have operated as we liked, but they are the “press” that the Constitution protects.
With the advent of the Internet, suddenly anyone could publish. Anyone could broadcast. Anyone could claim authority. And while that democratization had benefits, more perspectives — it also created more chaos and more misinformation. The word “journalist” has become elastic. Stretching to meaninglessness. There are no standards … no code of ethics … and worst of all, no accountability.
In the past, a press badge meant something. It was issued by a news organization that had a reputation to protect. It signaled training, professionalism, and accountability. Now, believe it or not, you can buy a press badge on Amazon for $12.99 with free shipping. Some folks print their own. Others join “press associations” that exist solely to hand out laminated cards to anyone with a PayPal account.
And when police or public officials push back, these self‑credentialed reporters shout “First Amendment!” as if the Constitution is a universal backstage pass.
The Legal Gray Zone
Here is the uncomfortable truth. The First Amendment protects freedom of the press — but it does not define what the press is and who qualifies. Courts have generally interpreted “press” broadly, which made sense when the press was still a profession. But now that the term informally includes everyone from Pulitzer Prize winners to conspiracy vloggers, the lines are blurry.
Should every person with a camera have the same access as a trained reporter? Should every podcaster be treated like a correspondent? Should every activist with a YouTube channel be allowed behind police lines? These are not rhetorical questions. They are real issues that are getting messier by the day.
Polls show trust in the news media is at historic lows. Why? Partly, I suggest, because the public no longer knows who counts as journalists. Is it the person on cable news or the person livestreaming from a protest? The folks writing Substack essays from their couches? The person shouting into a GoPro while chasing police cars? Are all the citizens Minnesota Governor Tim Walz sent into the streets with phone cameras now “independent journalists”?
If journalism is going to regain credibility, the profession needs to reclaim its identity. That does not mean shutting out independent voices — many do excellent work. But it does mean rejecting the freelancers as “journalists” is terms of the Constitution. Not everyone with a camera is a journalist, and not everyone who says, “I’m the press” and can flash a phony press card should automatically be treated as such.
The arrests of Lemon and Fort did not create controversy. They exposed it.
We are living in an era where the word “journalist” is used so loosely that it is practically decorative. In the Lemon and Fort cases, were they in that church as journalists to report the news? Or were they there as activists, using their bodies, cameras and voices to support the protesters? A judge or jury will have to deal with that issue.
If journalism is going to survive as a profession — not just a hashtag — it needs boundaries, higher standards, and especially a clear definition. It may take the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue to give clarity to the Constitutional definition of a free press and its practitioners. Otherwise, we’re left with a world where everyone is a journalist… which ultimately means that the profession of journalism no longer exists. Those college degrees in journalism are rendered worthless.
So, there ‘tis.
The main news media that grew biased when President Trump first came on the political scene, has since lost all integrity and credibility. These two are not so exceptional that they can just bust into a Church while worshippers are expressing their right to worship in their Church building. Lemon and his reckless cohorts need to be held accountable for trying to deny the rights of the assembled to worship in peace.
Manny: I think demonizing the press was with us since the Founders. Trump has escalated the attacks, has weaponized DOJ to arrest, indict journalists, publishing firms, with a little success, lots of failure, but instilling move fear in journalism. Not to mention having the taxpayer fund this crap to grow the deficit but do little but harm the cause of freedom. But the song remains the same, Trump has just taken it to a higher level. .
In modern times, both sides have dumped on those holding power to account, the fourth estate. Trump even censors the news by only allowing his friends in the White House Press Corp. He taints the pool. Today, if one side is not dumping on the press, they are accusing the press of honeymooning their opposition. Trump has been on a consistent mission to destroy the press any way he can. He hates that they report his lies, fact check him, and show disfavored polls. Since becoming Pres, he sued The New York Times numerous times, once you paid $400K in legal fees on dismissal, CBS, ABC (got settlement), Des Moines Register, BBC, CNN, and Woodward. Trump’s Truth Social has an active lawsuit against 19 media companies. Some of these cases are funded by your donations to the RNC, PACS, and in some cases, the taxpayer through the DOJ. IOW — u b footing the bill, and the bill often grows our deficit as China pays for it with loans.
It is rule one in the autocrat’s playbook to destroy the institution of the press so that only the King’s word matters. He does not have to x them out, just having you say “all news is fake news” is good enough. He has shamed them bhy calling them: “fake news, enemy of the people, MSDNC, “Crazy Megyn, Lyin’ Brian, Little Katy, Peek-a-boo, “failing” New York Times. “FNN” — Fake News Network, and far worse. He uses the massive power of the people to have his DOJ sue them, not to win, but to scare them into compliance. So far he has sued; The New York Times, CNN, ABC News, CBS (Paramount), BBC, The Washington Post, De Moines Register and The Wall Street Journal, to name a lot, but a few for Trump. He even sued the Pulitzer Prize people for not clawing back a NYT Pulitzer. Oh yeah, that’s lawsuits just on the last year. The worst part is he’s wasting your money to do this.
Both ABC and CBS settled for about $30M combined to the Trump library which will house all of our declassified nuclear secrets….
CNN – BUSTED, dismissed
Washington Post – BUSTED, dismissed.
NY Times – BUSTED, dismissed
Remember, the goal here is to create fear so to “ice” the press from being Trump critical. It still garners that effect even when he loses, his base thinks he won, and the press is uber careful because who wants to fight the entire US of A and all that legal money and talent. And Trump no care about the money —– it’s yours and he already knows how to incur the GOATS deficit and survive to be elected again.
But no, Trump is not new, he has just escalated to the delusional a war of words in existence since before the founders.
Sidenote: you do realize the news, print media to be exact, aided the Revolution via propaganda, news, and a speed of transmission not seen in the world and actually providing our side a technological advantage. We had the presses, the pens, and we delivered important news across the colonies in days whereas the British, using traditional methods, took weeks.
Why do people have to make this more complicated than it is? These people invaded private property !!!!!! Short of having a warrant no one has the right to trespass on private property period! Mr. Lemon and all of his acquaintances should all be in jail for invading a church property. The first amendment directs that churches are a protected space for people to practice their religion as they see fit. And I am sure that they had no wish to have their church service become a protest space. And their is additional legislation to protect church spaces.
And Lemon was on camera during the agitators’ organizing, saying he wasn’t going to reveal where they were headed, then helped pass out treats to those agitators. He was a part of the invasion, trying to mask his collusion by claiming to be a journalist.
aiding and abetting
Is a “journalist” who breaks the law still considered a “journalist” or a law-breaker?
he would be a criminal journalist, since being a journalist is something you call yourself…
Oh Joe, say it ain’t so. You just can’t call yourself a journalist…. Hey, I can’t either and I hold the sheepskin! Even wrote a few news stories. But a half century ago….
The first question here really is are they guilty? There’s seven hours of Lemon telling us he’s a journalist; he’s doing journalism, I don’t see him tackling church goers or scrumming the priest.
Got no collaboration on the snacks, don’t think they “it’s private means much, so not sure whether you got lemonade or hot air here.
The seven arrested protesters may be in a different boat.
On the Bondi DOJ side, these guys can’t indict a sub sandwich, hire inept prosecutors and have to shit can, drop prosecutions all the time, and have good prosecutors quit. Not a stellar record of success.
They also seem content to blame and shame so maybe their stupid perp walk not allowing lemon to turn himself in and 15 minutes of fame will be enough blood for them and they will TACO.
Time will tell, waiting for all those smart phone clips.
Did you notice how “inside” the cops were? Like they were standing next to Don for seven hours?
I agree with Larry, it’s bigger than the alleged crimes; and I think much bigger than Larry notes. Uh oh —— foreshadow alert! It’s going to be wildly long, ho go. What’s new?
Well, a felon who becomes President is considered the Felon King so why not criminal journalist. Given Larry’s piece, I bet they already exist and we call them Alex Jones and Steve Bannon.
Ba Dum Bump —— quite the softball there. 2WVet :<}}}
Dunger Trump is a manufactured felon because of sleazy cock suckers in your commie party. But like the old song by the country Alabama ,“You Can’t Keep A Good Man Down “. Remember that, asshole. That being said, fuck you Marxist fools.
Paul. Oh my you are so defensive. I am sorry for your emotional breakdown. Please feel better soon.
Which of the 64 felony convictions in which of the two courts are you waving off? And the digital rape and defamation he was judged guilty of; that’s bogus too?
Gee, that’s like three frocked judges, handful of prosecutors, and like three dozen jurors, many of which are republicans, all crocks huh
Seems to point to entire judicial system is corrupt.
The big question is how could Trump let them do that? Seems a mistake to get used like that. Not the art of the deal, eh?
Try not to lose it if you respond; kid stuff’s for kids. Try adult.
Dunger it’s called lawfare handled by crooks in the judiciary system. People said something and the people running the kangaroo courts pushed it. But who knows? He might get that shit overturned. Not that it matters. He doesn’t need to get another job after his term ends. And he doesn’t need to have a gun. He has security for life. And if that changes he can afford paid security. But some serious shit is starting in Georgia. Like I said. “ you can’t keep a good man down. But I’m sure you hope his security fails someday.
Dungoof: are you so stupid that you can’t spell DANGER? And your reply talks of security and guns, and Georgia shit? What’ the inuendo lowdown of that?
You seem to believe that the entire judicial system, even the jurors are corrupt. Sweeeet Jesus are you paranoid to believe you no longer live in a country governed by the rule of law and that our law is corrupt. Your proof is that Trump, and TrumpCo was found guilty of over 62 felonies by two different juries, two different judges, two different courts. Plus a third civil case too. Three courts, three judges, three juries, all conspired to get Trump. Republicans joined in too according to you.
In one case, 22 witnesses, many text documents signed by Trump proved the point you say is fake law. That case also proved his election interference too. A Pecker testified against Trump in that one, priceless. And a porn star. His lawyer testified. And a fleet of others, mostly Trump employees. Trump brought up a guy who dissed Cohen and a guy who said little of beneit on the records. Really, Trump’s lawfare was a weak defense: TACO. This was a New York State Court case.
His business felonies were in a Manhattan court, this one was for paying people off-the-books, cooking the books, and the books have the document trail for over 30 felonies that you say are false; Trump’s own signature is fake I guess.
And that’s all before you get to the civil case, another court, another judge, another jury.
Given three juries, the percent of Republicans living there, the fact one not guilty hangs the jury, and Trump did not raise a stink about only liberals being on the jury, pretty sure he was convicted by Republicans too there too.
You call it “lawfare,” well that’s some crafty wide-ranging conspiracy where no appeals have made headway. I call name your opinion after a river in Northern Africa: denial.
Security, guns, jobs, people said things, kangaroo courts – three of em, it was the people running the courts done did it; you are becoming unhinged, going off the rails, one brick shy of a wall, somewhat delusional to think in two felony cases, not one Republican stood up and said: NOT GUILTY. Not one. Think Republicans are like 10 – 20% in that area; meaning there were 2-4 Republicans in these juries, more if Trump’s lawyers did their jobs. Only need one to hand the jury. Just one. Were the Republican jurors corrupt too? That’s what you are saying, that Republican jurors just caved to the conspiracy.
Let’s take a look: *https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/7-jurors-trumps-historic-criminal-trial/story?id=109325932* Two white-shoe lawyers — nah, no chance of Republican there, not. A middle-aged teacher from Harlem who says: “President Trump speaks his mind,” she said. “And I’d rather that than someone who’s in office who you don’t know what they’re thinking” and gets her news from Goggle and Tic-Tok. Oh yeah, if white: got to be MAGA! If not white, maybe. Judge for yourself —- looks like a conservative or two in that panel. Only takes one.
The jury on the hush money case took 10 hours to deliberate, asking for review of a few things. Considered pretty average time for complex cases. Not long, not short.
Sorry, dude, I do not see evidence of lawfare, and you have provided no support except your “feellings,” nothing more that your feelings of love. Hope it sustains you.
Not BUSTED, but seems like denial touching on the delusional where all things liberal be crooked even if Republicans are in the mix. You have a wide-ranging conspiracy and absolutely no evidence.
Dunger it’s clear that we don’t live by the rule of law. Remember summer of Floyd? Trump was adjudicated by a biased jury. No question. One case in question is the old hag that said Trump molested her. No witnesses. Doesn’t matter. The battle cry was to get Trump. Your crowd didn’t win America won. Trump won.
Dungoff: thanks for the confirmation that, indeed, you are so stupid that you can’t spell DANGER. You say “Dunger it’s clear that we don’t live by the rule of law” where your proof is Trump lost and you no like that. Pretty weak tea. Then you add: “remember summer of Floyd?” Yeah, cop knelt, and killed a guy and there were protests with some violence. People were arrested, tried, convicted, and we moved on. So how does that support your denial?
You then claim: “Trump was adjudicated by a biased jury. No question.” And no proof. And it would be 3 juries, in three trials, in three different courts.
“One case in question is the old hag that said Trump molested her. No witnesses.” Actually, while no witnesses to the crime, and if that’s what you need, we can just stop even trying since there’s rarely a witness to rape; there were plenty of witnesses. Eleven for EJ: a couple of friends recounting Caroll a day or two after Trump’s attempted rape, a couple from the store testifying to the environment and possibility, a couple that testified, “yup, he tried similar shit with me,” and a few talking to harm, dollars, etc. Trump offered little defense, and no witnesses, not even a character witness. What the jury saw was opportunity, prior similar acts, and harm. Guilty on the civil charges for big bucks.
Yes, Trump won his third try. And you are less than magnanimous in your victory instead spew stewing over revenge, retribution, and retaliation, being the big men you are. NOT.
Do not misconstrue my critique as denigrating Larry’s piece. It is a good piece, too bad kind of ruined by his second take.
I like his piece, generally agree. I just think he missed a pretty big factor, could add something with great relevance, and have a better and bigger picture of what’s really going on.
At the top of this, he does not mention the most critical point: Trump’s weaponized DOJ is arresting American journalists covering stories Trump does not like. You can’t even tell whether any laws are broken, the indictments are sophomoric, and it seems, once again, to be about shaming folks publicly to “ice” the entire press industry. Just put the fear of lawsuit on all of them. My bet: once again and with most Trump lawsuits: tossed or dropped and never sees a courtroom. While Bondi once again looks inept, she has served her cannon fodder purpose to scare people in order to bend the news Trump’s way. Has anyone ever gotten ahead by working for his guy? Ever? Gee, Pammy, take a look at the long list of Trump workers tossed under the bus. How many were considered once to be great by Trump only to become sail rabbits.
Larry also left out the decades old ongoing destruction of the press from the right, AND, the effect that The People have in all of this. The fake news smear campaign been going on for a couple of decades now. Even longer than the Big Lie.
First, Larry generally blames the system, the institution, for lowering standards. That may or may not be true, I say not, and I say it’s more than that. Second, he decries the advent of the digital global village, the tower of babble if you will. I agree, what a mess. And Larry’s own house, PBP, is a prime example. Sorry, but who has got a journalism degree here (except me!), who is setting standards, who is enforcing anything here. Only Larry has a bio. Perhaps only Larry has a real name. Perhaps only Larry is real, although Joe, not his real name, is known as real, with no experience in journalism or publishing. Dempsey is actually as real as Joe. Just as it was in 1776. Again.
One of the “new technologies” of our beginning was the press. Untrained, unprofessional, lots of propaganda, invention, creation of real and fake news. Anyone with a mind, access to a press, could be a journalist. Much opinion pretending to be news. But “the pen is mightier than the sword” is Jeffersonian even if written during the time of Shakesphere. Important news could cover the colonies in days. The Committees of Correspondence functioned as an “18th-century internet,” allowing rebel leaders to communicate rapidly between colonies to spread tactical information, news, or propaganda. They could get info in days, the British army took weeks to transmit and receive. It became a strategic and tactical weapon benefiting our populace and army. It was a sea change that caught the British by surprise.
McLuhan’s words: “the medium is the message” never have rung more clearly than the wild-west of info, the internet, shows.
Here’s what Larry missed: the biggest change, and the biggest force of nature in all of this is the reader. The people. For years, Larry’s side has bashed, trashed, and lambasted the press as fake news. Today the People believe him. Now he asks the industry to fix what his side has broken. No one trusts any of our trashed, bashed, and lambasted institutions.
The lie is not accepted as news; unless in court, or filing a government application, lies are legal is our new mantra. Today it’s OK to lie to the press, it’s legal. Sure, there are libel and defamation laws, but lying? Nah.
Yes, Larry is right that the news should manage it’s own house; we should not need laws for that. Perhaps we should have a “license” to be called news, but pretty unamerican to do that for opinion. We could mandate an opinion “warning label” like on smokes to differentiate from news and opinion; I would love to see that on cable “news.” I mean “ice cream” has a label a warning what is ice cream treat w gosh knows what ingredients, or ice cream, where ingredients are known just by the designation.
What I think is needed with Larry’s ideas is control exercised by The People. We need to instill traditional values and publicly punish those who trangress The People need to identify the lie; punish the liars at least by putting them in “the people’s penalty box,” not accepting as “ok because legal,” or worse yet, buy more info from liars because we like their politics, and basically, just shun them. That’s what used to happen. Tucker caught, Tucker have no show, no next job, and certainly not a raise. Yes, second chances are good, Martha Stewart can talk to us again, but The People have to stand up for the truth and many of these problems, even on the internet, will disappear. Perhaps the left substantiated this when we rationalized Clinton’s lie in office, as reported by the news.
Nonetheless, I think the problem is larger and different than just the industry as Larry recounts; I think this one is up to the people, and the remedy is easy: don’t support liars in the press, shun the liar, shun the publisher, and the rest will fix itself.
“Do not misconstrue my critique as denigrating Larry’s piece. It is a good piece, too bad kind of ruined by his second take.”
Some specific comments: “In the days of Internet commentaries, YouTube channels and podcasts, many claim to be so-called “independent journalists.” But is that a valid claim?” Yes, but with all that entails such as no governing body like a newsroom.
“There was a time — not that long ago — when journalism was a profession. Not a hobby. Not a branding exercise. Not a TikTok persona. It was a profession with college degrees and official press credentials.’ It’s about the same as the Founder’s time. Not sure this was ever true.
“Real journalists had editors, codes of ethics, and consequences for getting things wrong.” Larry, independent journalists have publishers; the buck should stop there. And one’s that don’t moderate like a newsroom managing editor should lose their business.
“Today? If you own a smartphone and can rant into a camera, congratulations — you can call yourself an “independent journalist.” That makes about as much sense as a person declaring him or herself to be a doctor or a lawyer.” Uh, really? Can you say RFKjr as CDC head, or Marshall Allen, a journalist who got a top-doctor award. Can you say George Santos? We have all sorts of incompetents with fake resumes in the highest of positions.
“But is he still a working journalist – without credentials or affiliation to a recognized news service?” Yes. Especially today. Why not? Been happening since the Founders and is a damn good reason why we exist as we do, a democratic republic whose vision and implementation is the envy of people desiring freedom everywhere. Our Founders were so smart. And good.
“Fort represents the new wave of activist journalists — self branded, self published, but no credentials or affiliation. Is she really a journalist in a constitutional sense?” Not true as in BUSTED. While no journalism degree, Fort has journalistic award nominations, a lot, a lot of news broadcasts with national networks, and stories in many major, accredited regional and national news outlets. And two Emmy’s for the news I think. Fort won a two year fellowship from the Bush Foundation in 2025 “to pursue executive education and continue building a journalism ecosystem that affirms community, develops talent and ensures that all voices are seen and heard.” Her independent news outlet seems to set a standard for how independent news should be done. Seems to me she has the creds, more creds than anyone in your rowboat here, except maybe you, and plenty good enough affiliations and track record. I think she sets a standard for independent news and independent publishing. What’s in your wallet oh pundit, oh pundit?
After dropping out of college with a 1.9 gpa, and failing at everything he tried, Tucker Carlson decided to pursue a career in journalism with the encouragement of his father, who advised him that “they’ll take anybody”. He should know; they took him. Fort has more credentials than this. And Tucker lied and then got a great new job on his own; you conservatives paid for it. You fund him. He got zero time in the penalty box.
“If journalism is going to regain credibility, the profession needs to reclaim its identity.” IMO, the public has to regain to the values we used to live and breathe.
“The arrests of Lemon and Fort did not create controversy. They exposed it.” Depends: if you mean Trump’s willingness to cross values-boundaries to engage in DOJ weaponization to create fear, loathing, about the fourth estate —- then I agree. But I doubt that’s what you mean.
“If journalism is going to survive as a profession — not just a hashtag — it needs boundaries, higher standards, and especially a clear definition. It may take the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue to give clarity to the Constitutional definition of a free press and its practitioners. Otherwise, we’re left with a world where everyone is a journalist… which ultimately means that the profession of journalism no longer exists. Those college degrees in journalism are rendered worthless.” So Larry’s answer to public acceptance of lies supporting their political ideologies is to create more laws which is seemingly contra MAGA precepts. It seems he desires creation of the journalism police; can anyone say: 1984?
As I previously said, the left can take a good amount of credit here. Our support of Clinton the liar, even if I think a trivial matter, really lowered the bar on what we accept. That did not end well for us as we got one term and now, a lot of lies. I think it’s up to the people to fix this. The people have to rise up and just say NO. Don’t let Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, or even Lemon or Fort get away with the lies. Bring back the public penalty box, stop funding these guys. And yes, second chances are good, just not immediate, put some teeth in that penalty box. Ask Newt Gingrich or Martha Stewart what that feels like.