Media law scholar Jane Kirtley retires from University of Minnesota after decades on the First Amendment frontlines

Media Law Expert Jane Kirtley Retires, Warns of Threats to Press Freedom

Jane E. Kirtley, the Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota's Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication, is retiring May 25 after two decades teaching and shaping how journalists understand their legal rights.

Kirtley, 72, spent 14 years before joining the university in 1999 as executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. She has been a go-to expert on First Amendment and freedom of information issues for legacy media outlets across the U.S. and abroad.

She delayed retirement twice-once when the pandemic shifted teaching online, and again more than a year ago when she anticipated First Amendment challenges under a second Trump administration. Now, she said, it's time to step back while she's healthy enough to travel and pursue interests like teaching abroad.

The Weaponization of Law Against Media

Kirtley's primary concern is what she calls the weaponizing of law to target independent media. President Trump has sued news organizations for libel and pursued cases based on novel legal theories-such as consumer fraud-never before used against the press.

The greatest risk, she said, is to the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, the 1964 Supreme Court ruling that requires public officials and public figures to prove actual malice in libel cases. Previous presidents, including Nixon, Reagan, and Obama, threatened press freedom. But Kirtley said she has never seen a sitting president pursue this volume and variety of lawsuits against media organizations.

"We know the current court has been willing in other contexts to reverse or overrule existing precedent of long standing," Kirtley said. "Whether they would do so to Times v. Sullivan is anyone's guess."

Ownership and Editorial Purpose

Many media outlet owners today do not see their platforms as vehicles for serving the public interest, Kirtley said. They view them as means for wielding power or maximizing profit.

Earlier media barons like William Randolph Hearst and the Sulzberger and Graham families also sought money and influence. But they understood the purpose of a free press: to hold the powerful accountable and inform the public. "I don't get even a hint from many of the current mainstream media owners," Kirtley said.

The Credibility Crisis

The public's trust in mainstream media has eroded over four decades, Kirtley said, from attacks by both the left and right. That systematic undermining makes it easier for political figures to dismiss critical reporting as false.

The internet and fragmented news ecosystem allow people to isolate themselves in information silos. "It's possible more than any time in my lifetime for people to isolate themselves in a particular silo and go to sources that reinforce what they already believe," Kirtley said.

Journalists can document facts, provide evidence, and link to sources. But once an institution is labeled a liar, its credibility to call out lies from others collapses in the eyes of many.

The Threat to the Profession

Kirtley worries that arrests and investigations of journalists doing their jobs will drive people away from the profession. Journalism has never paid well, but it attracted people motivated by a desire to uncover information and serve the public.

That motivation is harder to articulate now. Uncertainty about artificial intelligence's impact on the profession compounds the challenge. "With the growing uncertainty about the impact of artificial intelligence on many trades and professions, it's more difficult to articulate, 'What's the point of journalism?'" Kirtley said.

Still, she said, many young people want to do journalism. They want to hold government and institutions accountable and provide the public with information needed for informed decisions.

AI as a Threat to Journalism

Kirtley's stance on artificial intelligence is unequivocal: "I hate A.I." She said her negative feelings about the technology are one reason she is leaving teaching.

"I would feel complicit in a plot to undermine so many values that matter to me, like accuracy and critical thinking," Kirtley said. AI can compromise intellectual property rights and privacy. It tends to spread misinformation and disinformation.

She pointed to the Cleveland Plain Dealer's decision to have AI write stories from reporter-gathered facts, and the loss of copy editors who caught errors and questioned sources. "A.I. is not going to do any of that," Kirtley said. "It's just going to process what you feed into it, which means the product that results is going to be imperfect."

The New York Times recently prohibited freelancers from using generative AI to create, draft, edit, or improve their writing. Kirtley supports the prohibition but noted that younger writers, who grew up with AI tools, will struggle to implement such rules.

Learn more about AI for Writers and Generative AI and LLM to understand how these tools are reshaping the profession.

The FCC and Political Retaliation

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's actions against broadcast media critical of President Trump represent something Kirtley has not seen in her career: blatantly political regulatory activity.

The FCC has authority to regulate indecent speech to protect children, channeling it into safe harbor hours. But it is not supposed to engage in retaliatory action based on viewpoint. Carr's regulatory moves appear designed to discourage satirical or critical speech about Trump or his administration, Kirtley said.

The equal time rule exempts bona fide news programming, and talk shows have long qualified for that exemption. But Carr's FCC is revisiting that question, much as the Supreme Court could revisit Times v. Sullivan. "We will see what happens as this continues to play out," Kirtley said.