Don Lemon’s recent involvement in disrupting a church service in Minnesota raises troubling questions about his role as a journalist. Whether his actions crossed a legal line will be determined in court, but it’s clear he has violated the fundamental principles of ethical journalism.
Video evidence shows Lemon before the protest, revealing that he was not merely reporting but actively participating in the chaotic scene he later covered. “The operation is a secret,” he announced, implying he was part of something larger. His remarks about the event being “MAGA coded” and the need for “White allies” only deepen the concern. This language suggests he was aware that the protest aimed to infiltrate the service under false pretenses. Instead of providing transparency as a journalist ought to, he appeared to support a disruptive agenda.
As the church service erupted in chaos, Lemon attempted to frame himself as an innocent observer. This narrative falls apart when viewed alongside his prior involvement in the preparations for the disruption. Much like agitators who label themselves as “legal observers” while obstructing operations, Lemon’s claims of neutrality were disingenuous. He participated in operational security for the group and effectively helped orchestrate the scene that subsequently unfolded inside the church.
Lemon’s interviews during the disruption reveal his bias. Every churchgoer he questioned faced scrutiny regarding their stance on ICE, while those provoking the chaos were largely unchallenged. This one-sided approach reflects a troubling commitment to a narrative rather than journalistic objectivity. Lemon appears to harbor a belief that opposing figures associated with President Trump and ICE serves a greater good, reinforcing the notion that his responsibility as a journalist has been subordinated to his activism.
This incident starkly illustrates a concerning trend: journalists who advance their activism while claiming to report on it are undermining the profession itself. While some argue for the legitimacy of “activist journalism,” it must be pursued transparently. Consider figures like James O’Keefe, who openly embrace their roles as activists rather than hiding behind the façade of neutrality. Lemon’s dualism—a desire to remain an activist while presenting himself as an unbiased journalist—has proven untenable.
The integrity of journalism hangs in the balance as public trust continues to erode. Forty years ago, similar ethical breaches might have prompted repercussions within the industry. But today, that trust seems more fragile than ever, particularly when 70% of Americans express skepticism towards the media. Strong disciplinary measures must be taken against egregious breaches of ethics to restore confidence in journalistic standards.
While debates about the legality of Lemon’s actions unfold, the fundamental issue remains: his actions were a clear betrayal of journalistic ethics. A consistent message must be sent that such violations cannot go unpunished. It is crucial for the industry to impose consequences on those who misuse their platform, or face the risk of losing the audience’s respect and trust permanently.
"*" indicates required fields
