Journalists Must Uphold Professionalism, Not Indulge in Immature Tirades (Opinion)

The recent opinion piece from USA Today titled “Zuckerberg bags Facebook fact-checking. I blame his VERY REAL hatred of penguins,” authored by Rex Huppke, is a disconcerting departure from the standards one expects of credible journalism. In a profession rooted in integrity and truth, this article reads more like a juvenile rant than a thoughtful critique, raising serious questions about the role of professional accountability in media today.

Just yesterday, I penned a behind-the-scenes Substack post about how we need better commitments to truth in media. So the irony is not lost on me that today I was forwarded the column by Huppke which intentionally makes outlandish claims in protest of the ending of Meta’s fact checking program.

The piece, presented under the guise of humor, lacks both factual grounding and coherence. Rather than critically analyzing Facebook’s decision to end its fact-checking program, it resorts to absurd, unsubstantiated claims about Mark Zuckerberg’s supposed personal life, ranging from penguin hatred to nonexistent novels. This approach not only diminishes the credibility of the author and the publication but also insults the intelligence of readers who seek meaningful commentary on the implications of Meta’s policy changes. Journalistic integrity demands substance and depth—not exaggerated and fictional diatribes.

Adding to the disappointment is the context in which this piece was written. USA Today was a participant in Meta’s fact-checking program, earning revenue for its contributions and through ad clicks when readers sought to understand flagged posts. This creates a troubling conflict of interest, particularly when the article fails to disclose these financial ties transparently. By deriding Facebook’s decision without acknowledging its own financial stake, USA Today undermines its objectivity and inadvertently highlights the same issues of bias and sensationalism it ostensibly critiques.

The media bears a profound responsibility to serve as a bastion of truth and reason, particularly in an era rife with misinformation. When journalists prioritize provocation over professionalism, they risk eroding public trust in their institutions. Opinion pieces, while inherently subjective, should still adhere to a baseline of respect and rationality, offering informed perspectives rather than descending into parody.

Personally, as Radio Free Hub City has recently found ourselves under the heavy hand of censorship due to malfunctioning AI bots flagging completely factual articles such as our coverage of the City of Hagerstown going coinless for parking meters, I absolutely welcome Meta’s new approach which will implement a “Community Notes” style approach, similar to what X.com currently uses. And while this system undoubtedly has its own flaws, it’s a much better system than what Meta currently uses.

The decision by Meta to terminate its fact-checking program deserves robust scrutiny, as it has wide-reaching implications for the dissemination of accurate information online. However, such scrutiny must be approached with seriousness and ethical rigor—qualities sorely absent in Huppke’s column. For the sake of journalism’s future, writers and publications must hold themselves to higher standards than the ones demonstrated here.

Simply put, if this is the kind of garbage columns that USA Today is going to publish, then they have chosen to become nothing more trustworthy than a supermarket tabloid. But perhaps on the bright side, maybe we’ll get more articles about the fictional “Bat Boy”.

Opinion article by Ken Buckler. All opinions are his own, and do not reflect those of our clients or sponsors.

---