The Diddy Trial And Credible Media

As the Diddy trial continues to make headlines, the rise of cosplay journalism driven by influencers and content creators sharing unsubstantiated claims is eroding the foundation of trustworthy news. The result: audiences are increasingly unable to tell credible journalism apart from mere imitation.

It is getting out of hand. The transformation of media consumption cannot be used to compromise the tenets of journalism—or the identity of the journalist. From the recent red carpet antics to the courtroom chaos surrounding the Diddy trial, one thing is painfully clear: we are witnessing an epidemic of cosplay journalism.

According to the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, the core mission of journalism is to “seek truth and report it,” to “minimize harm,” and to “be accountable and transparent.” Yet in today’s media landscape, these principles are often overlooked in favor of virality, speed, and personal branding. The SPJ further emphasizes, “Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect,” and warns against pandering to lurid curiosity. This is exactly where cosplay journalism fails—where the spectacle outweighs truth, and rumor outweighs fact.

According to Muck Rack’s 2025 State of Journalism Report, 36% of journalists say misinformation and disinformation are the most serious threats to the future of journalism—more concerning than even declining public trust or funding. This is exactly why cosplay journalism is more than just a branding issue; it’s a credibility crisis.

Journalists who are tenured in this game are exhausted. I often scroll through my LinkedIn timeline and witness the expression of a plethora of practicing journalists—some struggling to find new positions, others whose quality work never sees the light of day. Some with decades in the game are simply disillusioned, openly sharing their disappointment with the current state of the media. That story deserves its own deep dive. For now, I want to focus on how this has played out in coverage of the Diddy trial.

Yes, it is true. There is no official requirement to become a journalist. There is no licensing board or formal certification. However, that is not what I am referring to because that is not the problem here. I am referring to the actual practice of proper ethical journalism.

A 2024 report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that only 40% of Americans say they trust most news most of the time. The collapse of trust is understandable when anyone with a camera and a YouTube channel can claim the title of “journalist.”

Since its official commencement last May, the Diddy trial has served as the ultimate opportunity for the media to feed the algorithmic needs. From social media influencers, bloggers, YouTubers, to actual journalists and legal analysts flocking to the Southern District of New York Court in downtown Manhattan. For all of them, this was an opportunity to capture a moment in hip-hop and American music history. However, those who are indeed social media influencers, bloggers, and YouTubers with no journalistic intent or background are only flocking to lower Manhattan to obtain content. Some of these social media figures have traveled across the country, some even asking their audience for CashApp donations to survive their stay in New York City to “cover” this trial. Some of them operate rather as new age paparazzi.

Without a doubt, this is one of the biggest trials of the decade and calls for such attention. And it is from this experience and manner that their subscribers are retrieving their content, finding their takes raw, unfiltered, and valuable, they are under the impression that the success of such content has now qualified themselves to take on the label of journalist. Now this, is certainly an erroneous thought and act. The aforementioned order of behaviors does not make such social media influencers, bloggers, or YouTubers sudden journalists. Absolutely, never. They are undeniably social media figures. But a journalist? No.

Many can’t tell the difference—and cosplay journalists straight up exploit that confusion. According to Pew Research, approximately 40% of U.S. adults who get news on social media say inaccuracy is the aspect they dislike most—for example, unverified facts, “fake news,” or unreliable sources. Yet even with that awareness, their subscribers, drawn in by raw and unfiltered coverage, begin to believe that going viral qualifies someone to be called a journalist. That is an erroneous and dangerous belief.

Oxford defines a journalist as someone “who earns his or her living by editing or writing for newspapers, magazines, etc.” This is the traditional comprehension of the identity of a journalist. And it still stands, as the most credible journalists are associated with media outlets. In my opinion, Florida’s shield law offers the clearest and most comprehensive definition of a journalist, and should be adopted as a universal standard. According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Florida Statute 90.5015(1)(a) defines a journalist as:

“A person regularly engaged in collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing news, for gain or livelihood, who obtained the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, a newspaper, news journal, news agency, press association, wire service, radio or television station, network, or news magazine.”

This is pretty much a universal understanding of what makes one a journalist. However, it is fair to say in contemporary times, journalists with built credibility have been operating through their own modes of media—be it radio and podcasting like Pulitzer winner Karen Hunter or launching a YouTube media network like the renowned Don Lemon. As a matter of fact, 34% of journalists now self-publish outside of traditional newsrooms, and 61% of those report earning income from doing so, per Muck Rack. This shows that independence is not limited to informality, it still demands training, ethics, and trust-building. However, it was not Hunter’s sole ability to write and Lemon’s diction that catapulted them to high credibility status—it was their compassionate wandering curiosity, personable deliverance, and investigative rigor that earned them the trust of their audiences.

Now, let’s just look at some of the credible music online publications and their journalists that are covering the Diddy trial, like seasoned hip-hop journalist Shawn Setaro at Complex alongside fellow Complex journalists including Jaelani Turner-Williams, Trey Alston, and Trace William Cowen where the platform is giving near daily updates. Then there is Bill Donahue who is giving consistent coverage on the Diddy trial over at Billboard.

Rolling Stone has dedicated coverage by Nancy Dillon, Cheyenne Roundtree, and Jon Blistein—which is expected because of the historic exposé they published last year regarding the Diddy allegations which was published before the infamous Cassie lawsuit last November. It was the perfect example of hard credible journalism as they abided by pure journalistic ethics: from securing accuracy and verification with their six-month investigation, acquiring multiple sources between Diddy’s friends, former employees, witnesses; they were transparent as they provided legal context and communicated the allegations as being allegations; they distinguished what was fact and what was rumor—something that YouTubers who cosplay as journalists will not ethically do as their platforms thrive off of unverified rumors; and Rolling Stone‘s investigation was apparent to hold no conflict of interest and operated independently.

In the exposé, Rolling Stone balanced public interest versus potential harm by considering the sensitive details surrounding what was then unverified accusations. This speaks directly to another SPJ standard: “Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.” Rolling Stone took months to investigate and was cautious in how they presented allegations—something cosplay journalists sidestep in favor of instant engagement.

What needs to be understood by the public, those who do not hold the responsibility of journalists, is that it does not matter how believable a rumor may be. In the practice of journalism, if the journalist can’t with their own lens verify such a rumor and confirm such to be a fact through evaluation of multiple credible sources—which may take at times months to years—they must disclose that it is indeed alleged. YouTubers use this alleged term all the time in their rants, in lieu of avoiding defamation claims. However, they misuse the term in a manner where even amid their broadcasts that they wish to label journalism, they still overwhelmingly insinuate truth.

And of course, there are traditional mainstream news outlets who are also ethically covering the Diddy trial. Over at the New York Times, journalists in the likes of Julia Jacobs, Ben Sisario, and Anusha Bayya have taken on the platform’s consistent coverage of the trial, while mainstream publications including The Washington Post, The New York Post, E! News, ABC News, and CNN are disseminating near hourly updates while also being mindful of the sensitive nature of such contextual exposure to domestic violence. Most of these outlets are referring readers to the National Domestic Violence Hotline through editor’s notes—a necessary act particularly amid the week Cassie Ventura took the stand.

Mainstream outlets at large are privy to proper press credentials to the trial, and hence have some of their most trusted reporters on the scene. Among the most visible are ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent Aaron Katersky, CNN Legal Analyst Laura Coates, CBS News’ Jericka Duncan, and News Nation’s Laura Ingle who have all taken on the unbiased, classic inverted pyramid style of strictly fact-based broadcast reporting combined with investigative and analytical chops.

Chasing around celebrities with a microphone for an unarranged so-called interview is not journalism. Using your voice to disseminate the talk of a rumor in the name of transparency is not journalism. It is amateurish and potential grounds for defamation. Journalists do not speak on unverified facts. As the SPJ states, “Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label advocacy and commentary.” The problem with many content creators cosplaying as “journalists” is that they distort under the guise of transparency, while disguising entertainment as fact. And if such is mentioned in a report, at most, the fact that it is an unverified variable of the article will be disclosed. The truth is many that cosplay the identity of a journalist are realistically aspiring media personalities. Many of these people are fixated on being in front of the camera.

There are those who don’t declare themselves as journalists but take on media roles in delivering commentary and asking figures basic questions (not necessarily an interview)—like DJs, actors, athletes—something that runs rampant in the form of podcasts, red carpets, and radio. They don’t call themselves journalists, but they think they are in the same line of business. These people are wholeheartedly business tycoons. They see opportunity in the lane of media and they capitalize off of their appeal and reach—something that most ethical journalists have as actual practitioners within their unique networks and the dedicated journalism world—which is not at large.

Most practicing journalists do not have grand social media followings because let’s face the truth: reading is boring to most Internet users and social media paraders. According to Muck Rack’s 2025 State of Journalism Report, 61% of journalists have fewer than 5,000 followers, and only 19% reach the “micro-influencer” level of 10,000–100,000 followers. In journalism, visibility and virality are not the standard—credibility is.

Then there are those raw tenured journalists that we love. They have been in the game for years and decades. Some of them, the above average broadcaster who once held a slot on a traditional media platform like a Joy Reid or Briahna Joy Gray. They are prime examples of those who have managed to pivot their journalism into modern modes of viral media. An act that journalists are starting to realize they must pivot to, but in the most integral and ethical manner.

That is the power of real journalism. Not cosplay. Not content. Actual journalism.

As the Diddy trial attracts the cosplayers of journalism, it’s time we protect that distinction.