Just two months ago, Oscar-nominated documentary filmmaker Julie Cohen was invited to help choose some of the most prestigious awards in broadcast and digital journalism. She felt honored to join the selection committee of the duPont-Columbia Awards, hosted at Columbia University.

But this week, before she could take part in her first selection process, Cohen resigned from the nine-person committee in protest of Columbia’s recent concessions to President Donald Trump.

Under the threat of losing access to $400 million in federal contracts and grants, the university caved to Trump’s demands of, among other things, revamping its protest policies and overhauling its Middle Eastern studies department. It included agreeing to ban masks on campus that are often worn by pro-Palestinian protesters and hiring security guards with the authority to arrest students.

The New York Times called Columbia’s acquiescence a “remarkable concession.”

It went too far for Cohen, the co-director of the film about late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg titled “RBG,” which was nominated for a Best Documentary Feature at the 2019 Academy Awards.

Cohen told me during a phone interview on Tuesday that her resignation was “just the right thing to do.”

“I kind of felt this was the right opportunity for me to stand up and say, no, this is not the normal course of business,” she said. “You read about everything that has happened so far with the Trump administration, and you keep waiting for people to stand up and say, ‘Whoa! No! This is wrong.’ Well, this was my time to do that.”

In her resignation letter, Cohen made it clear that her decision was not “personal” toward the duPont Awards or Columbia’s journalism school. She said she was stepping down because “I no longer wish to be associated with Columbia” after several developments, most notably that the university “so readily caved to the Trump administration.”

She wrote in her letter that she understood Columbia was in an almost impossible position, with Trump threatening to withhold $400 million essential to the school.

But, she added, “By choosing instead to negotiate and give in, Columbia has empowered Trump to demand more from Columbia and every other university in the U.S. Any thoughtful analysis of how institutions respond to creeping authoritarianism makes it clear: capitulation is the wrong way to go.”

She would add, “There’s clearly a cascading effect to people caving in to Trump. But I’ve observed recently that there’s also a cascading effect created when people stand up against the erosion of democratic norms. That’s the cascade I’d rather be part of — even if it means walking away from something that would be meaningful and enjoyable.”

Cohen, 61, acknowledged that she’s in a good position to speak out and take a stand. She’s an independent filmmaker who doesn’t rely on the university to make a living, as employees of Columbia do. She also didn’t need the small stipend she would have received for being on the duPont-Columbia selection committee.

But she also brings credibility to her public protest. She got her master’s degree from Columbia in 1989. She served as an adjunct faculty member and adviser to the documentary program there. She received a J-School Alumni Award just last year.

Before becoming a documentary filmmaker with projects like “Every Body,” “Gabby Giffords Won’t Back Down” and “Julia” (about Julia Child), Cohen was a producer for NBC’s “Dateline.”

And there’s this, which she wrote in her letter:

The Trump Administration, and now Columbia, says the new policies are meant to address harassment and discrimination aimed at Jews. As a Jewish alumna, I don’t take concerns about antisemitism lightly. But it creates a dangerous precedent to put the federal government in the position of striking the delicate balance between protecting free speech and preventing hate speech, harassment, and violence on a college campus. And it would be naïve not to view the Administration’s demands on Columbia in the broader context of its stated goal to dismantle and reshape American higher education. The Administration has already threatened or punished other universities over other issues: DEI and transgender athletes.

Last October, the Columbia Journalism Review published a story about Mariel Garza, the Los Angeles Times editorials editor who resigned in protest after Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong nixed the editorial board’s endorsement of Kamala Harris for president. Garza told CJR executive editor Sewell Chan, “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”

Cohen referenced that quote in her resignation letter and told me Monday, “I know that quote so well, I don’t even have to Google it. In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up.”

Cohen then added, “Well, this is how I am standing up.”

Apparently, she is not alone. On Tuesday night, Cohen said that three other duPont jurors had resigned.

Here is Cohen’s resignation letter from the selection committee:

I’m writing to step down from the duPont Columbia jury. This isn’t personal to the duPont Awards or the Journalism School. (I’ve seen and appreciated the statements about press freedom that the J-School has put out over the past two weeks.) 

I’m leaving the panel because I no longer wish to be associated with Columbia after the university:

— so readily caved to the Trump Administration;
— put in place specific provisions that are highly objectionable (I’m especially alarmed by the decision to hire a new Senior Vice Provost with broad authority over curriculum and faculty hiring; and to hire and train the 36 “special officers” who are empowered to arrest protesters or remove them from campus);
— tried to justify the whole thing as if it were the normal course of business.

The email I got over the weekend from the alumni office – signed by president Armstrong – had the subject line: “Sharing Progress on Our Priorities.” 

I’ve always been really proud of my connection to Columbia, from which I got my masters degree in 1989; have served as an adjunct faculty member and advisor to the documentary program; and received a J-School Alumni Award last year. But I’m not feeling proud today.

I understand the nearly impossible position Columbia was in with the Trump Administration’s sudden withholding of $400 million in funding that is essential for cancer research and all kinds of deeply important things. But I note that the Trump team hasn’t committed to release those funds even AFTER Columbia acquiesced on most of their demands (if they’ve made such a commitment privately, they may be lying). As a group of scholars who teach at Columbia Law School have explained clearly, there were strong grounds for a legal challenge to the Trump Administration’s demands. By choosing instead to negotiate and give in, Columbia has empowered Trump to demand more from Columbia and every other university in the US.

Any thoughtful analysis of how institutions respond to creeping authoritarianism makes it clear: capitulation is the wrong way to go.

The Trump Administration, and now Columbia, says the new policies are meant to address harassment and discrimination aimed at Jews. As a Jewish alumna, I don’t take concerns about antisemitism lightly. But it creates a dangerous precedent to put the federal government in the position of striking the delicate balance between protecting free speech and preventing hate speech, harassment, and violence on a college campus. And it would be naïve not to view the Administration’s demands on Columbia in the broader context of its stated goal to dismantle and reshape American higher education. The Administration has already threatened or punished other universities over other issues: DEI and transgender athletes.

Of course you already know these arguments. The trickier part is my personal decision to step away from the duPont jury. I was honored to be asked to judge and I looked forward to the actual task. But I think that in this uniquely dangerous moment there is a real value – even if primarily symbolic – in not going along with decisions that are wrong. I’m taking historical analogies really seriously right now. What would I have done if I had a minor commission at a German university in the early 1930s when universities were going along with Hitler by expelling professors who were Leftists or Jews? I like to think that even if I weren’t Jewish, I would have stood up to the utter wrongness of the universities’ acquiescing by stepping down from my position. I acknowledge the analogy may be overstated; but it also may not be. We can’t know at this point exactly how bad things will get. 

There’s clearly a cascading effect to people caving in to Trump. But I’ve observed recently that there’s also a cascading effect created when people stand up against the erosion of democratic norms. That’s the cascade I’d rather be part of – even if it means walking away from something that would be meaningful and enjoyable.

The Columbia Journalism Review published a strong piece last October about Mariel Garza, the L.A. Times editorials editor who stepped down after the Times’ owner pulled a staff editorial endorsing Kamala Harris. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up,” Garza told CJR of her decision to quit. “This is how I’m standing up.” 

Sincerely,
Julie Cohen

Aftershocks from Monday’s bombshell

One day after the bombshell story that The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was added to a text chain that included top U.S. intelligence and military officials discussing plans to strike Houthi targets in Yemen, reaction continued to spread like … well, a busy text chain.

Not surprisingly, the reaction from the White House and conservative media outlets ranged from trying to discredit Goldberg to dismissing the whole story as no big deal.

Even though the Trump administration verified that those messages were authentic, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called Goldberg a “deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who’s made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again.” Many in conservative media have been even more insulting, and there’s nothing fair about amplifying those ridiculous claims here.

But to be clear, Goldberg is a tough, fair and well-respected journalist.

Meanwhile, the company line from the administration is that the whole thing is much ado about nothing.

Mediaite’s Colby Hall wrote, “Pro-Trump media figures have since bent over backward to try to defend the apparent massive security breach, which feels like a potential felony crime, given the law that Trump enacted during his first administration following the email server controversy of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. After fits and starts and trying various explanations, Trump surrogates eventually landed on their insistence that no classified information was shared with Goldberg.”

In an interview with The Bulwark on Tuesday, Goldberg said he could be open to sharing more details about the group chat. But he also is going to be responsible.

When asked by The Bulwark’s Tim Miller if he should just publish everything from the texts, Goldberg said that “just because (the administration is) irresponsible with material doesn’t mean that I’m going to be irresponsible with this material. And you know what? I could, whatever. … I mean, you’ve had a long history, as I have, with dealing with them. And at moments like this, when they’re under pressure because they’ve been caught with their hand in the cookie jar or whatever, they will just literally say anything to get out of the moment, to get out of the jam — and that’s OK. I get it. I get the defensive reaction.”

He would then add, “My obligation, I feel, is to the idea that we take national security information seriously. And maybe in the coming days, I’ll be able to let you know … I have a plan to have this material vetted publicly. But I’m not going to say that now because there’s a lot of conversations that have to happen about that.”

Today’s showdown

(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Today is a big day on Capitol Hill as leaders from PBS and NPR face Congress in a DOGE subcommittee hearing being called — how’s this for grim? — “Anti-American Airwaves: Holding the heads of NPR and PBS Accountable.” Even more ominous, it’s headed up by Georgia Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Greene is planning to call Paula Kerger, the chief executive of PBS, and Katherine Maher, the chief executive of NPR, to testify. Greene is also pushing to defund PBS and NPR, which has plenty of support among Republicans.

When asked Tuesday by reporters, President Donald Trump said he “would love to” remove federal funding from the two outlets.

Kerger told The New York Times’ Benjamin Mullin, “Everything is at stake. The future of a number of our stations across the country will be in jeopardy if this funding is not continued.”

Maher told Mullin in an email, “As a member of the public media system, we know that federal funding is essential to ensuring all of America can hear and be heard on a truly national network.”

Mullin wrote that Greene expects “that the hearing would address public media’s coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop, the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia — which she called ‘the Russian collusion lie’ — and other stories that were ‘left-leaning even to the point of propaganda.’”

Greene said, “I think the important thing for Americans to ask is: Is this where our taxpayer money needs to go? To extremely left-leaning broadcasting and political bias that doesn’t represent all of America?”

This hearing has a real chance of flying off the rails.

As Mullin wrote, “Some worry that Ms. Kerger and Ms. Maher will be subjected to the same combative interrogation that the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania faced in a hearing about campus antisemitism in 2023.”

Tick tock on TikTok

As we approach next month’s deadline for TikTok to be sold or face a nationwide ban, the Pew Research Center has published a survey on Americans’ attitudes toward the social media platform.

Pew reports that public support for a TikTok ban now stands at 34% among U.S. adults. That’s down from a year ago when it was 50%. In addition, the percentage of those who view TikTok as a national security threat has dropped from 59% in 2023 to 49% now.

Still, of those who support a ban, the overwhelming reason (83%) is that they say users’ data security is at risk. Of those who oppose a ban, 74% said a major reason is that it would restrict free speech, and 63% said TikTok provides people with information and entertainment. In addition, 61% said there is evidence to call TikTok a threat to the U.S.

There are plenty more interesting numbers to dig into, so check out the study.

Media tidbits

• The Washington Post’s Jeremy Barr with “The Trump White House shut out the AP. They keep showing up anyway.”
• What news site saw the largest growth during the first month of Trump’s second presidency? Well, according to Similarweb, The Hill’s website saw the most growth in unique visitors out of any news site in the world from January to February. The Hill saw 48 million unique visits and increased its web traffic by nearly 20%.
• The Tampa Bay Times’ Dan Sullivan with “Lawsuit claims Times failed to pay Poynter charitable trust.”
• Amna Nawaz and Geoff Bennett, co-anchors of the “PBS NewsHour,” have been named co-managing editors of the newscast. PBS says that in their expanded roles, Nawaz and Bennett will help lead the editorial direction of content shared on all PBS News platforms, including digital and social. They will continue to co-anchor.

Hot type

• Terrific story in The New York Times by Misty White Sidell with excellent photos and video from Benjamin Rasmussen in “A Figure Skating Star Who Breaks the Mold.”
• Another good New York Times article with superb videos and photos. This one is about typewriters. Visuals by Jillian Freyer and text by Scott Cacciola in “A Type-In to Say Goodbye to a New England Institution.”
• USA Today’s Kenny Jacoby with “‘They’ll hold you over a barrel’: How NHL team’s execs milked youth hockey families for profit.”

More resources for journalists

• Our foundational leadership program, the Poynter Leadership Academy, is designed for management professionals. Apply by March 31.
• Advance your legal understanding through a workshop with strategies to secure your work in the current media climate. Enroll now.
• Strengthen democracy through investigative journalism with our hands-on five-week seminar. Enroll now.
• Reimagine your reporting as a non-fiction book. Apply by April 25.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.

The Poynter Report is our daily media newsletter. To have it delivered to your inbox Monday-Friday, sign up here.