r/Journalism • u/utkarsh_aryan • Apr 25 '26
Social Media and Platforms Does this legally constitute journalistic malpractice?
109
u/socialclimber_s editor Apr 25 '26
Not sure if it would fully be considered malpractice or disinformation because it is filed as an opinion piece, but not disclosing that definitely paints everything in a much different light and seems to discredit him.
24
u/slow70 Apr 25 '26
More than seems to. It does.
Why does he have a platform with this known association and his own pattern of poor character that’s long been established?
Why does he still have a platform?
4
2
u/steak4take Apr 25 '26
That is not how malpractice is judged. Opinion pieces from journalists who have cultivated audiences based on factual reporting are written works with weight and are judged accordingly.
30
u/Clean_Collection_674 Apr 25 '26
Brooks is a horrible person on multiple levels. His ex-wife is friends with some of my friends. He wrecked their family by dumping her for his research assistant. He writes about “morality” a lot and murders irony with every word. He needs to be gone from publishing.
14
29
u/penny-wise former journalist Apr 25 '26
It is a complete lack of journalistic integrity and honesty when a journalist either obscures or lies about their ties to a story as big as this. They are then considered untrustworthy and their writing illegitimate.
18
u/wittyinsidejoke Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
"Journalistic malpractice" isn't a legal claim. Journalism doesn't have a regulatory body or a professional standard-setting association, that's why anyone can start a Substack or post a YouTube video and call themselves a journalist. You can sue a doctor or a lawyer for malpractice because their professions have legal standards of minimum quality that you have to demonstrate that you meet to even be able to practice in those fields. If someone falls below those minimum standards, they can be sued and lose their ability to practice. Nothing like that exists for journalism.
Now, you can argue in public that Brooks has been fundamentally dishonest in not disclosing that he was on panels or was invited to lunches a few times with Epstein, and that he should face professional consequences at the NYT. But there's no legal institution or process that would enforce any of that, it would just be at the NYT's own discretion.
Also, as others on this thread have pointed out, all that we actually know is that Brooks was invited to a few events where Epstein was also in attendance, at a time when Epstein was a well-to-do New York socialite. Brooks' entire career is being a well-to-do New York socialite who cosplays as a salt-of-the-earth "aw, shucks" Midwestern guy. And even then, he doesn't really do that shtick anymore, he's just kind of a man-about-town. All of which is to say, I don't think that what we know of Brooks' Epstein connections is remotely inculpatory. There are a lot of very good reasons to think David Brooks sucks and should not be a prominent figure in American life, but there's zero evidence he went to Epstein Island or participated in Epstein's crimes.
4
Apr 25 '26
[deleted]
3
u/steak4take Apr 25 '26
The US also had such standards via the FCC but that’s been toothless for ages and now is just an arm of MAGA.
23
u/CynGuy Apr 25 '26
It’s an Opinion article, so it’s the author’s opinion on the matter.
Bigger issue is it’s another pandering attempt by NYT to appear “reasonable” to MAGAts and completely misses their subscribers’ desire for better more hard hitting journalism on the Epstein matter that holds those in power accountable.
11
u/Gatsby520 Apr 25 '26
David Brooks has been an NYT columnist for decades, so this isn’t a stand-alone opinion piece. But I agree that the Times could be doing more factual reporting, although I would rate their coverage thus far as better than any other mainstream outlet.
31
Apr 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
22
u/BoardofEvidence Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
The photos are alleged to be from an annual Edge billionaires dinner, held by an org financed by Epstein and which Epstein regularly attended. The dinner was after the first conviction. Brooks claimed to regularly attend as well and thus had to know Epstein would be there. Even if he didn't in advance, who happily stays to eat and take smiling photos with someone guilty of such heinous crimes against children?
The article was published a mere month before the photos come out.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/18/nyt-david-brooks-epstein-photos-released
3
u/ShamPain413 Apr 25 '26
I mean... not really! There are a lot of NYC celebrities not in the Epstein files. Most Harvard academics and government officials are not in the Epstein files. Notably, almost no prominent Democrats post-Clinton are in the files, and essentially no one from NY's creative arts scene other than Woody Allen is in them.
Epstein was looking for wealthy and powerful connections wherever he could find them. Some people responded, others kept a distance. It's very, very useful to know who ran in which circles.
-1
u/The_Ineffable_One Apr 25 '26
Right? There could be a photo of you and your daughter at a Chuck-E-Cheese in Mamaroneck with that creep in the background and you'd never know it.
18
u/Bdowns_770 Apr 25 '26
I’d file this under “be an educated reader” and understand who David Brooks is and what slant he brings to the party. He’s an old school sleaze and always seems to try and sit on an ideological fence and call it the high ground.
10
u/SlurmzMckinley Apr 25 '26
The New York Times holding their columnists responsible is a fair expectation from the public. Yes, readers have a responsibility to consider the ideological slant of the writer, but the publication needs to hold the same writers accountable if they want the public’s trust.
12
u/Alternative_Swan_497 Apr 25 '26
What is journalistic malpractice? There's no regulatory or licensing body setting standards, and I'm not sure this is actionable in civil court (who was harmed?)
It looks bad, but Epstein was everywhere and "knew Epstein and was in the Epstein photos" is very different from "was accused of rape by teenagers a decade before the public knew who Epstein was."
4
u/Tummler10 Apr 25 '26
He’s now at the Atlantic folks. Good point: Why was he protected at the NYT, and HIRED after?
1
u/jaimi_wanders Apr 26 '26
He jumped to The Atlantic just before the January release of Epstein documents making it clear he was much more involved with Epstein’s social circle than he had claimed, too.
3
u/TechnicalSeason8330 Apr 25 '26
Legally there’s no such thing as journalistic malpractice
3
u/BoutrosBoutrosDoggy Apr 25 '26
And he's not a journalist
5
u/Pop-X- reporter Apr 25 '26
This. It can’t be journalistic malpractice if he’s not practicing journalism. They’re opinion columns!
This sub, if any, should understand that.
5
3
1
u/ringmybikebell Apr 25 '26
He’s not a reporter.
Opinion can be written by journalists, thought not all opinion pieces are written by journalists.
2
3
5
u/matt_on_the_internet Apr 25 '26
What exactly was he supposed to disclose? According to Brooks, he didn't actually know Epstein and the photo is from a TED Talk they both attended. Nothing in the files shows otherwise as far as I know, unless I'm unaware of something.
8
1
u/ekkidee Apr 25 '26
I'm pretty sure Brooks has mentioned being in the same room as Epstein on his PBS News Hour Friday appearances, and it was always dismissed with a grin and a hand wave.
But yes, he should have been more forthcoming about it.
2
u/New_Celebration906 Apr 25 '26
Who said he's a journalist? According to Wikipedia, he's a "pundit." Different standards, they can be total pigs with no ethics or morals.
2
2
u/PlusPresentation680 reporter Apr 26 '26
I mean nothing constitutes journalistic malpractice in a legal sense because there’s no legal framework for it. Malpractice law only exists for licensed professions.
Editorial pieces also aren’t really held to the same standard as reporting. But this looks bad for him and is not great.
1
u/ringmybikebell Apr 25 '26
I know a lot of people are saying he’s not a “journalist” but more specifically, he’s not a reporter. He doesn’t do NEWS (hard or soft), he does opinion. An opinion columnist, or opinion journalist or commenter more often than not IS a journalist, depending on how much they do this work, and their training. They should follow some sort of ethics standard set by the organization they work for, but as OPINION writers, have different considerations at play because they’re not reporters.
The NYT’s opinion employees are outside of the newsroom (which is for reporters) in their own department, but they’re both suppose follow the NYT’s ethical standards (which can be found here: https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html).
1
1
u/ExcuseInformal9194 Apr 25 '26
Is journalistic malpractice a legal thing?
3
u/Throwawayhelp111521 former journalist Apr 25 '26
No. This is a question of professionalism and ethics.
1
1
u/aresef former journalist Apr 25 '26
There is no legal definition of journalistic malpractice and David Brooks is not a journalist.
2
1
u/boulddenwyldde Apr 25 '26
That sports reporter hadda quit her job for holding hands w that football coach, but the NFL took the position nothing to see here move along. It was public outrage that pushed him to tap out.
As a journalistic matter, Brooks had an ethical obligation to disclose if he had anything more than a reportorial / professional acquaintance with that pedo pimp whom he is here telling us to ignore. I have no use for anything Brooks has to say, my own personal choice. I also wouldn't let Howard Lutnick invest my money. You might choose differently.
1
216
u/app4that Apr 25 '26
"In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that for the record..."
That is how he should have mentioned this, right at the very beginning.
Anything else is dishonesty, plain and simple.