What About the Responsibility of the Press?

But I digress.

There are two other big examples of media malfeasance I want to talk about, both of which demonstrate that — to paraphrase Spider-Man — with great freedom of the press should come great responsibility.

First, I have to circle back to the Lindsay Clancy trial and the media's gleeful doxxing of the holdout juror. We can be conscripted at any time by our government to serve on a jury. Our duty as a jury member is to consider the facts in evidence and rule accordingly. Usually, that involves making sure the prosecution has proven its case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. But with Lindsay Clancy, the jury was comprised of 11 activists who, by their own admission, wanted to "make things better for women" by finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.

One man, who happens to be black, objected. His fellow juror said this man couldn't get over the fact that Clancy "visciously" murdered her children (that was the juror's own word, by the way). But because the Left can't stand an uppity black person, they dredged up the fact this man had domestic violence allegations and a restraining order against him.

Allegations is the key term here: he was convicted of nothing. Domestic issues, especially divorces, can be nasty business. Spouses (usually the women) make horrible accusations against their soon-to-be-ex to gain leverage in family court, gain custody, and get more child support. We've all seen it. Some of my male readers even lived it.

EXCLUSIVE: The holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial had a history of domestic violence allegations, the @NBC10Boston Investigators have learned through court documents and interviews with family members.
Watch at 4p, 5p, and 6p and on our digital platforms.…

— Sue O'Connell: COMMENTATOR, not a reporter (@SueOC_NBCBoston) September 11, 2026

Why was this relevant to the Clancy case? How did this serve the public interest in any way? It didn't, unless the "public interest" was a left-wing press that is trying to turn jury duty into the latest frontier for leftist activism. Nothing good comes of that, but that's a topic for another column.

But there's another story that hits closer to home for me. Over the weekend, Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Tiffany was flying from a campaign event when the small aircraft he was in lost power. It had to "ditch" in Lake Wausau. Tiffany and the pilot had to swim to shore. He and the pilot sustained minor injuries.

Enter Hope Karnopp with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. She took the time out of her Saturday night or Sunday morning to let us know that Lake Wausau is only 30 feet deep.

Hey @hopekarnopp — why’d you delete this? Why is a @journalsentinel employee minimizing what happened to Tom Tiffany? pic.twitter.com/czKPMPQdcj

— Amy Curtis (@RantyAmyCurtis) September 13, 2026

When asked what she used the word "only," Karnopp replied, "To explain the gravity of the situation. 30 feet doesn't seem like much to me."

Keep in mind this woman is a reporter for the largest newspaper in Wisconsin. And here she was, apparently minimizing what happened to the Republican candidate for Governor.

Or was she?

Karnopp says she didn't mean to minimize what happened, but of course she's blaming the readers for misunderstanding her.

I posted tweets earlier that were misunderstood. I was attempting to point out that the depth of the lake could have caused the plane to hit rocks, creating an even more dangerous situation.

I did not mean to imply the depth made the landing less serious. It was the opposite.

— Hope Karnopp (@hopekarnopp) September 13, 2026

Let's assume Karnopp is being sincere here. I have my doubts — the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel isn't known as a bastion of bipartisan fairness — but let's give her the benefit of the doubt for a moment.

What is Karnopp's job? She's a reporter. She communicates for a living. If she was intended to convey the seriousness of Tiffany's situation, why didn't she say that in either her original post or her reply (both of which are now deleted)?

How hard would it have been to say, "At such a shallow depth, the crash could have been much worse?" or something similar?

Because she meant what she said exactly as we interpreted it. We didn't "misunderstand" anything.

So while I'm a staunch defender of the First Amendment, including freedom of the press, that freedom isn't limitless. The media have a moral obligation and they fail in it every single day.

Perhaps a new Constitutional amendment is required. To wit:

The freedom of the press being essential to the preservation of a free Republic, those entrusted with its exercise shall bear a corresponding duty to the People: to seek and report the truth with honesty and moral integrity; to distinguish fact from opinion, evidence from allegation, and public interest from partisan advantage; to neither deceive nor deliberately mislead; and to exercise the extraordinary power of the press in service of an informed citizenry rather than the punishment, humiliation, or manipulation thereof. The liberty guaranteed to the press shall therefore be understood not merely as a privilege to speak without fear of government reprisal, but as a solemn responsibility to pursue truth faithfully and to wield that liberty with the integrity a free people deserve.

This is, of course, tongue-in-cheek, but only slightly. It's been clear for a long time that the media think they are not arbiters of truth and fact, but activists and partisans who must push the Democrat Party agenda and attack Republicans, conservative speakers, and even jurors who fail to toe the Democrat line.

It's time they started being held accountable for being so bad at their jobs.