Yesterday the @nytimes published a piece featuring interviews with, and glossy photoshoots of, multiple neo-Nazis. E.g. below is neo-Nazi Martin Sellner, who had direct ties to the Christchurch shooter. At what point can we call this journalistic malpractice?

To print uncritically that he preaches nonviolence is bad enough: it's no secret that these figures constantly use "mainstreaming" tactics to obscure the violence of their ideology. He was also literally listed in the Christchurch government report as an influence on the shooter

But the @nytimes decided it was also necessary to send a photographer to take this neo-Nazi's photo, and to give a megaphone for his ideas and opinions in the paper of record. The same article quotes Matthew Heimbach, Rinaldo Nazzaro, and other white supremacists

Colleagues of mine like @wphillips49 have developed ethical guidelines for covering white supremacy, something that many journalists have carefully and thoughtfully brought to their coverage. This article violates many of these guidelines
https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/3-PART-3_Oxygen_of_Amplification_DS-1.pdf

Phillips's recommendations include the following: "reporting should avoid framing bad actors as the center of the narrative" and journalists should "be aware of how strategic many groups of white supremacists and nationalists are in their communications"