Nobody should be shocked by the instinctive response from the mainstream media whenever one of its own comes under fire, even if that person has long since drifted outside the bounds of traditional journalism.
The recent effort to defend Don Lemon is a case study in that reflex. Lemon, who is no longer employed by CNN and has increasingly positioned himself as a political commentator and activist, was nonetheless treated by some media figures as if he were still a practicing member of the press whose work deserved institutional protection.
That instinct was on full display when George Stephanopoulos appeared to lend credibility to Lemon’s claims, framing the controversy around familiar talking points about press freedom and First Amendment protections.
The problem, critics argue, is that the facts of the case do not neatly fit that narrative. According to public statements and the indictment itself, a grand jury determined there was probable cause to move forward, a threshold that exists precisely to separate speculation from legally actionable conduct. That finding is not a matter of partisan interpretation but a formal step within the justice system.
HOLY CRAP! Deputy AG Todd Blanche just CALLED OUT Fake News ABC George Stephanopoulos to his FACE for running cover for Don Lemon storming a church
“CONVENIENTLY missing from what you just showed, George, is the appellate court and a judge on the appellate court who said just… pic.twitter.com/xXMd06A5hm
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) February 1, 2026
The emphasis on probable cause is central to the pushback against Lemon’s defenders. A grand jury, convened to independently evaluate evidence, concluded that the standard had been met.
The indictment is publicly available, allowing anyone to review the allegations and the basis for the charges. That transparency undercuts claims that Lemon is being unfairly targeted simply for expressing unpopular views or engaging in adversarial journalism.
Another layer of the debate revolves around the scope of constitutional protections. Freedom of the press is a foundational right, but it is not a blanket shield against all forms of conduct, nor does it automatically apply to every action taken by someone who once worked in media.
As critics have pointed out, the First Amendment also protects freedom of religion and other liberties, none of which grant immunity from the law when criminal thresholds are crossed. The question, then, is not whether journalism should be protected, but whether the actions described in the indictment plausibly fall under that category at all.
This is where the defense appears to falter. Those challenging Stephanopoulos’s framing argue that labeling Lemon’s actions as “independent journalism” stretches the definition beyond recognition. They contend that the available video evidence and the language of the indictment describe behavior that is difficult to reconcile with standard journalistic practices, regardless of one’s political sympathies.
