NPR broke a huge story Tuesday morning.

Or so we thought.

NPR’s veteran Supreme Court reporter, Nina Totenberg, who has been covering the high court since 1969, reported that conservative Justice Samuel Alito had announced his retirement. A story was posted on NPR’s website

But Alito had made no such announcement. Supreme Court spokesperson Patricia McCabe told reporters, “NPR’s story on Justice Alito is inaccurate and any report they had a court statement was inaccurate.”

NPR quickly took down the story and replaced it with the following:

Editor’s note: Earlier today, we erroneously published a story saying that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring. Neither Alito nor the court’s public information office has announced his retirement, and we have retracted the story.

Thomas Evans, NPR’s editor-in-chief, said in a statement that the article was published because of a “misunderstanding.”

Evans added, “Neither Justice Alito nor the Supreme Court Public Information Office has announced his retirement. As soon as the error was realized, the story was retracted and removed from NPR’s website and an on-air correction was broadcast.”

The New York Times’ Benjamin Mullin wrote, “The article, which was more than 1,000 words, was a retrospective on Justice Alito’s career. It focused on his majority opinion for the 2022 case that overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion-rights case. Calling Justice Alito ‘a consequential conservative,’ the article said that Mr. Alito had played a key role on the court on issues including religious and voting rights.”

Unfortunately, the story was quickly picked up by a couple of other outlets, including Vox and Bloomberg, which sent the news to its terminal subscribers.

So how did this happen?

My Poynter colleague, Kelly McBride, who is also NPR’s public editor, got to the bottom of it in a column published Tuesday afternoon. McBride reported that Totenberg misheard an announcement about retirements as she was leaving the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The news about the news, delivered every weekday

Join tens of thousands of journalists, media leaders and news enthusiasts who rely on The Poynter Report to stay ahead of the stories shaping the industry.

Subscribe for free

McBride reported, “As she was leaving the court, Chief Justice John Roberts was announcing upcoming retirements. Totenberg misheard Roberts’ statement.”

More on that in a moment. But let’s get to how the story ended up being published.

It’s not uncommon for news organizations to have pre-prepared stories for possible breaking news, such as the deaths and retirements of prominent public figures. Totenberg and NPR had such a story ready to go about Alito’s eventual retirement.

McBride wrote, “Totenberg spoke with both her intern, who was at the court with her, and NPR Executive Editor Krishnadev Calamur and told them what she heard. Calamur surfaced the story that NPR had previously prepared for the day Alito did announce his retirement and published it. The information was also broadcast on NPR’s airwaves. NPR was offering special live coverage of the court’s decision on the birthright citizenship case.”

The story was up on NPR’s website from 10:51 a.m. to 10:57 a.m. Eastern, when it was replaced with the editor’s note. It was corrected on the air at 11:07 a.m.

That happened after Totenberg called Calamur and said she was mistaken.

Calamur told McBride, “I was looking to see who else was reporting it, and nobody was reporting it, and then, basically, we realized that it was not true. She called and said, ‘I made a mistake,’ and we rushed to make a retraction.”

While Totenberg did the reporting, there were questions about the editing process that led to NPR quickly posting Totenberg’s story.

Mullin wrote for the Times, “The article went through an extra layer of editing, known at NPR as ‘the backstop,’ according to two people familiar with the process. NPR added that layer in 2024 as a final line of defense against errors before publication. But because the article cited an announcement, rather than confidential sources, the network did not take additional steps to verify the accuracy of the information, the people said.”

Clearly, NPR trusted Totenberg, who has covered the Supreme Court since 1969 and for NPR since 1975. And it’s fair to say that NPR rushed to publish what would have been a huge breaking news story.

Calamur told McBride, “She’s the preeminent Supreme Court reporter in the courtroom. So I’m assuming that’s what she heard. … She’s in the room. It’s like when we report opinions. I’m not waiting to see what the Times is reporting. It’s when Nina says, here’s what happened, and we do it. That’s the trust you build up.”

However, it’s now clear that Totenberg needed to confirm what she thought she heard was true. That goes for any story, but particularly one as big as a Supreme Court justice retiring.

Later in the day, Totenberg appeared on NPR’s “All Things Considered” and explained what happened, which somehow made things more confusing — and worse.

She took full responsibility for the error and read a note on air that she sent to Alito apologizing for her mistake.

In the note to Alito, Totenberg said, “I rushed out of the courtroom after the opinion announcements, and when I realized that the usual rush of folks after a few minutes had not happened, I asked somebody (what) was going on inside, to which the answer was, ‘retirement announcements.’ I didn’t hear the ‘s’ on ‘announcements,’ and I assumed something no reporter should ever do, that you were retiring. It was the worst professional mistake of my more than 50 years in journalism. I could go on, but I don’t know what else to say, except that I am so, so sorry.”

So the story was published because she believed she had heard someone say “retirement announcement” instead of “retirement announcements?” Was Alito’s name even mentioned?

It may have been an honest mistake, and NPR corrected it as soon as it could. But there was no question that it reflected sloppy reporting and sloppy editing, both seemingly fueled by the rush to be first.

The Atlantic’s Charlie Warzel wrote, “This is a scenario that reporters lose sleep thinking about. There are a number of potential lessons here: that a breakneck news cycle is forcing even the best reporters and editors to move too fast, that modern beat reporting itself has become too consumed with being first to report stories where the ‘exclusive’ title adds little value. (Totenberg’s story, which was packed with expert context and analysis, would have been valuable even if it had been published five minutes after a competitor.) You could also make an argument that such errors have never been costlier in an era when trust in media has never been lower, or that the very dynamics that push legacy news outlets to rush and lose credibility are the very ones that reward shock jocks and those peddling misleading information.”

Warzel’s column, by the way, has a larger point, which he put this way: “But, in attempting to document the fallout from the NPR story, I’m struck by how little there was. Outside of a confusing few minutes, very few people other than media critics and Court observers have seemed to care about the mistake.”

Big day from the court

While all the media attention regarding the Supreme Court was about NPR’s retraction of its Alito story, the court actually made big rulings on Tuesday to close out its term.

Perhaps the most notable ruling involved birthright citizenship. Normally, a Supreme Court decision reaffirming the Constitution wouldn’t be headline news. But this case was different because it involved President Donald Trump’s attempt to end automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants and some temporary foreign residents.

Instead, the court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the order violated the 14th Amendment, which grants automatic U.S. citizenship to almost anyone physically born in the United States.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

Trump showed his displeasure on Truth Social, writing, “The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process.”

The New York Times editorial board praised the ruling in “The Supreme Court Remembers Its Principles.”

In the other notable decision announced Tuesday, the court upheld West Virginia and Idaho state laws that bar transgender athletes from playing on girls’ and women’s sports teams.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority, “Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable: Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition.”

Kavanaugh did add that transgender athletes deserved respect. He wrote, “No student-athlete on either side of the issue, whether a biological female or transgender, deserves to be ostracized or vilified.”

As a wrap, here’s The Wall Street Journal’s Chiqui Esteban and James Romoser with “See How the Supreme Court Has Decided the Major Cases of This Term.”

And here’s The New York Times’ Ann E. Marimow, Abbie VanSickle and Alicia Parlapiano with “The Major Supreme Court Decisions in 2026.”

A media win

A view of the Pentagon in 2023. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

A federal judge ordered the Pentagon to end a policy requiring reporters to be escorted by government officials while working in the building.

Judge Paul L. Friedman, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said the policy violated the First Amendment. He wrote, “This court has spoken at several points about the critical importance of protecting the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment, and that evergreen message bears repeating.”

Tuesday’s ruling is the latest chapter in the Defense Department’s ongoing battle with the press. Last year, the Pentagon required journalists to sign a document promising they would not seek or access information the department hadn’t made available to them, including unclassified information. Naturally, most real news outlets refused to sign the policy, and they were kicked out of the Pentagon.

The New York Times sued, and after it prevailed, the Pentagon changed the policy to include the escort requirement.

Surely, this will continue to play out in court, but Tuesday’s ruling was another victory for the press.

In a statement, a New York Times spokesperson said, “Today’s well-reasoned decision reaffirms the First Amendment rights of the press to cover the Pentagon without restrictions designed to prevent the public from knowing what the military is doing. The court recognized that the Pentagon’s hastily implemented new policy was a clear violation of the Constitution.”

Wait a second

The British government has concerns about Paramount’s $110 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery and could challenge the deal.

Lisa Nandy, the British culture and media secretary, expressed concerns about media outlets coming under the control of fewer corporate owners. She said in a statement, “Following engagement with the parties and independent research, my department ​has today written to the current and proposed owners of Warner Bros Discovery on ​my behalf to inform them that ⁠I am minded ⁠to intervene.”

Nandy added, “I am conscious that the proposed acquisition is global in nature. In reaching this decision, my focus has been, and will remain, on the UK public interest and the range of services available to UK audiences, including Channel 5, TNT Sports, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, and CNN International, as well as Paramount+ and HBO Max.”

Nandy set a July 6 deadline for the companies to respond.

A Paramount spokesperson said, “We are grateful for the continued constructive engagement with all interested government bodies and relevant authorities, including in the UK. We are confident that our proposed transaction does not pose any media plurality issues in the UK and remain confident in our stated transaction timeline.”

CNN’s Brian Stelter wrote, “The UK has long been one of the two big wildcards during this process. The other: Attorneys general in states like California and New York. Appearing on MS NOW over the weekend, California AG Rob Bonta repeated his statement that ‘there are red flags in the air everywhere’ with Paramount-WBD, and ‘the transaction has not cleared regulatory scrutiny.’ Bonta added, ‘We’ll make a decision in the coming weeks.’”

Upon further review

Last week, The New York Times published a big story on Dianna Russini, the NFL insider who resigned from the Times-owned Athletic after Page Six published photos of her hanging out at a resort with someone she covers — New England Patriots coach Mike Vrabel. The two are married to other people. The extent of their relationship remains unknown publicly, but The Athletic is investigating whether it created a conflict of interest.

The Times story opens with an anecdote that Russini told on a radio show and podcast about the time she got out of a texting-and-driving ticket. She did so, she bragged, by FaceTiming an NFL head coach to talk to the officer who pulled her over.

But police bodycam video doesn’t show that Russini ever FaceTimed the coach. Credit The Center Square’s Adam Herbets for getting the video.

In it, Russini tells the Ridgewood, New Jersey, police officer who stopped her that she was an NFL reporter covering the firing of Buffalo Bills coach Sean McDermott. She then asked the officer if he was a fan of the Giants or Jets. He said neither, that he was a fan of the Minnesota Vikings. At that point, Russini showed the officer a text exchange she had with Vikings head coach Kevin O’Connell. The officer said, “Oh my god. Wow. Pretty cool.”

When she told the story on the podcast, Russini said she FaceTimed the coach, who then told the officer, “You should let her go, she’s a good citizen.”

But the video shows no FaceTime exchange.

In any event, the officer did let Russini off with just a warning.

Chief Forest Ross Lyons of the Ridgewood Police Department issued the following statement to ProFootballTalk’s Mike Florio:

“On January 19, 2026, at 9:40 am, a Ridgewood police officer conducted a motor vehicle stop on Godwin Avenue involving Ms. Dianna Russini for the use of a handheld cell phone while driving. After following department protocol during the stop, and reviewing Ms. Russini’s driving history, the officer exercised his professional discretion and issued a verbal warning to Ms. Russini. The use of officer discretion in determining whether to issue a warning or a citation is consistent with Ridgewood Police Department policy and longstanding practice. Police officers are encouraged to use their judgment and, when appropriate, provide motorists with warnings as part of the Department’s commitment to fair, impartial and community-oriented policing.”

Russini’s name-dropping isn’t a great look. But it’s not nearly as bad as if she had actually FaceTimed a coach to help her get out of a ticket.

Then again, it’s a little shameful to go on a podcast and brag about something that never happened to make yourself look cool — not to mention unethical.

One final thought: Again, credit New Jersey’s The Center Square for getting that bodycam video. You have to ask why the Times didn’t, considering just how detailed its story was otherwise.

Scathing criticism

Former NFL running back Chris Johnson revealed Monday in a sobering interview with “Good Morning America’s” Michael Strahan that he has ALS.

Johnson is no longer able to speak with his mouth. He uses eye movement to communicate through a speech-to-text device. Johnson, 40, told Strahan, “There’s no history of ALS in my family. My doctors believe my case is what’s called sporadic ALS, which is actually how the vast majority of ALS cases happen.”

But Jeff Pearlman — the former longtime Sports Illustrated writer and author who often posts videos about his sportswriter experiences — posted a video on TikTok blasting what he calls “media cowards” for not doing enough to note the connection between playing football and ALS.

Pearlman noted that Strahan, who conducted the interview, is a Pro Football Hall of Famer and currently works as a studio analyst on the “Fox NFL Sunday” pregame show.

Pearlman says in the video, “The number of times Michael Strahan, a former football player, asks Chris Johnson about this? Zero. The number of times Good Morning America brings this up? Zero. It is so (expletive)  irresponsible and grotesque. Michael Strahan, who’s paid by the NFL, Michael Strahan who makes his money commenting on NFL games, doesn’t bring it up. He knows the tie between football and ALS. He has seen fellow players suffer from ALS because they played football. And you are so (expletive) soulless, and you are so corporately owned that you will not bring it up.”

In another video, Pearlman said Strahan should’ve at least asked Johnson if he regretted playing football, or if he learned anything about any possible ties between football and ALS.

For more, check out this story from Awful Announcing’s Sean Keeley.

Also, podcaster Dan Le Batard agreed with Pearlman, saying on his podcast, “Michael Strahan has a responsibility in that instance to ask some sort of football-related question, and he did not do it.”

Le Batard added, “The only reason Chris Johnson is on there is not because he has the disease, it’s because he played football. The reason Chris Johnson is being interviewed is because this is a former athlete of some name. They’re not interviewing random people with ALS, they’re interviewing this person. And so to neglect that question is an omission that I don’t know why the omission is there. And I’m curious. And if you ask the question, you remove the hole in your interview by just asking a question, if football had something to do with this.”

Media tidbits

• Be sure to check out the latest episode of “The Poynter Report Podcast.” My guest is Wall Street Journal media reporter Isabella Simonetti. We talk about the latest with CBS News, “60 Minutes” and the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery deal and what it could mean for CNN.
• The Chicago Sun-Times’ Mike Davis with “Alzo Slade isn’t new to this, he’s true to this. Meet the new ‘Wait Wait’ scorekeeper.”
• Dave Portnoy, founder of Barstool Sports, has a new book that came out on Tuesday. Gotta admit, it’s a pretty clever title: “Cancel Me If You Can.” He talks about his new book, among other topics, in this Q&A with Front Office Sports’ Ryan Glasspiegel.
• Mediaite, the excellent site that covers the latest in media, has made three new hires, including Stephanie Kaloi as staff writer. She comes over from TheWrap and will take the lead in writing the Mediaite One Sheet newsletter, which aggregates other media newsletters. Mediaite’s Joe DePaolo has the details on the latest hires.

Hot type

• The Atlantic’s David A. Graham with “A Watergate Every Week.”

More resources for journalists

• Beat Academy: Strengthen your 2026 midterm coverage with practical tools for reporting. Enroll now.  
• Build a stronger child welfare reporting beat with free expert-led training, practical tools and newsroom-tested strategies. Apply now.
• Learn how to report on the impact of incarceration on children, parents, guardians, and communities. Enroll now.

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

The Poynter Report is your daily dive into the world of media, packed with the latest news and insights. Get it delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday by signing up here. And don’t forget to tune into our biweekly podcast for even more.