While digging around their website, I found their ethics policy—including a section on AI-generated content. I suspect that’s a part of what happened here. And I’m upset about that too! I did NOT speak to a journalist with the assumption that my interview would be funneled into producing AI slop.

Show Post

As an update for anyone who isn’t digging through the comments: I found more articles by USA Today journalists I’ve never met. There are THREE that used quotes from my interview recording—including many quotes that were never publicly published anywhere else.

Show Post

And still, all of it could have been avoided if USA Today respected the experts they interview. They could have been one of the only publications to get it right *from the beginning* by platforming the concerns that sexual violence researchers had as soon as we saw the DA's statement.

Show Post

After I posted this thread, I got an email from an editor indicating the story had been updated. They removed my quote and added new text about the developments in the case. I don't know if they ever would have done that without pressure, but it's something.

Show Post

The primary objective of journalism is supposed to be telling the truth. It is a DECISION on the part of USA Today to know that new details have emerged about this case and to refuse to update an old story that is still circulating and still shaming Jane Doe.

Show Post