Music, food and beer — what more could you want? Sponsored by the Medford Chamber of Commerce.
Trump’s threat to ABC shows that Nixon’s still the one; plus, media notes
Something that Donald Trump said after his disastrous debate with Kamala Harris served to confirm my Richard Nixon Unified Field Theory of Everything.
The morning after the debate, Trump called in to Fox News, and he was mighty unhappy. He began complaining about ABC News and its debate moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis, who had the temerity to correct him when he said that undocumented immigrants are feasting on pets fricassee and that Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, support “executing” infants after they are born. Then he issued a threat:
I think ABC took a big hit last night. I mean, to be honest, they’re a news organization. They have to be licensed to do it. They ought to take away their license for the way they did that.
Now, ABC is a network, and it doesn’t hold a license. But it does own stations in some of the largest media markets in the country, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. (The ABC affiliate in Boston, WCVB-TV Channel 5, is owned by the Hearst chain.) So even though no one can take away a non-existent license from the ABC network, a fact that Trump may or may not understand, he could threaten local licenses.
Which brings me to Nixon. After he won re-election in 1972, his presidency started to unravel over the Watergate scandal — and coverage of that scandal was being driven by The Washington Post. One of Nixon’s responses was to threaten (not in so many words, mind you) to pull the licenses from several television stations that the Post then owned. For instance, a close friend of Nixon’s, Cromwell Anderson, headed up a group that challenged the Post’s license at a Miami TV station. Then-publisher Katharine Graham wrote in her memoir (free link), “Personal History”:
Anderson began to move against our station in Miami in September of 1972. This happened to be the same month Nixon (as later heard on the tapes) said that The Post would have “damnable, damnable problems” about our license renewals, a phrase that was censored when the tapes were first released by the White House….
[T]he legal costs of defending the licenses added up to well over a million dollars in the 2½ years the entire process took — a far larger sum then than now for a small company like ours.
Back then, presidents and former presidents didn’t blurt out such threats on national television. They worked behind the scenes, and Graham couldn’t be sure if Nixon had a direct role in the license challenges or not. Then as now, though, allowing the government to have a say in regulating the media can lead to threats and retaliation — something that Nixon took advantage of, and that Trump would like to emulate.
Media notes
• My Northeastern journalism colleague John Wihbey and I spoke with Patrick Daly of Northeastern Global News about why some media outlets in the U.K. are charging readers an extra fee if they don’t want to be tracked by advertising cookies. I told Daly that the practice hasn’t caught on in the U.S. because most people don’t care all that much about privacy. Daly, by the way, is based in Global News’ London office, where Northeastern has a campus.
• The once-great Baltimore Sun has fired reporter Madeleine O’Neill for comments she made on the Sun’s internal Slack channel about the paper’s newish owner, Sinclair Broadcast Group chair David Smith. Among other things, the op-ed page has been running pieces by Smith’s buddies without disclosing that Smith has been funding the causes they’re pushing. Fern Shen of the Baltimore Brew has the story.
Congratulations to the winners of the 2024 LION Sustainability Awards
Two of the projects that Ellen Clegg and I write about in “What Works in Community News” have won 2024 Sustainability Awards from LION (Local Independent Online News) Publishers:
-
- MLK 50: Justice Through Journalism, based in Memphis, won two awards in the medium-to-large revenue tier — one for operational resilience, the other for financial health.
- Santa Cruz Local, in Southern California, received the product of the year award in the micro-to-small revenue tier.
Ellen and I have also interviewed MLK editor and publisher Wendi C. Thomas and Santa Cruz Local CEO Kara Meyberg Guzman on our podcast.
Congratulations to all the winners.
If the LA Times’ owner had stepped up, the LA Local News Initiative might not be needed
The American Journalism Project announced this week that it’s raising $15 million to cover underserved communities in Los Angeles. The news was broken Tuesday by Axios media reporter Sara Fischer.
What’s been left unsaid (although Rick Edmonds of Poynter observes that it’s being hinted at) is that this is being driven by the abject failure of the Los Angeles Times’ celebrity billionaire owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, to step up and provide the region with the journalism that it needs. Indeed, among the board members of the new Los Angeles Local News Initiative is Kevin Merida, who quit as executive editor of the Times amid budget cuts and reports that Soon-Shiong was interfering with Merida’s editorial judgment.
Become a supporter of Media Nation for just $5 a month.
For a metropolitan area the size of LA, $15 million is a drop in the bucket, though presumably it’s meant as a down payment on what will be a larger effort. The money will be spread among a variety of existing projects and could fund new outlets as well. Monica Lozano, who chairs the initiative’s board, told Fischer: “We believe no one news entity can fill all of the information needs of communities as large, complex and diverse as Los Angeles. We needed to think about a model that would match that complexity and that diversity.”
Here’s how the American Journalism Project describes the initiative in its announcement:
The L.A. Local News Initiative will launch a nonprofit organization that will operate and support local newsrooms in Los Angeles to provide coverage at neighborhood, regional, and state levels in service of L.A. communities. The initiative aims to increase the volume of coverage that enables residents to take effective action and navigate life on a local level, and that represents all L.A. communities in public discourse. It will also increase accountability journalism that keeps in check the billions of dollars in government and private spending affecting the Angelenos.
What’s sad is that the AJP should have been able to direct its attention elsewhere if Soon-Shiong hadn’t proven himself to be a feckless and irresponsible owner. An unimaginably wealthy surgeon, he and his family purchased the LA Times in 2018 for $500 million. He appeared to be exactly what the Times needed after years of chaotic ownership.
Like John and Linda Henry at The Boston Globe, Glen Taylor at The Minnesota Star Tribune and Jeff Bezos at The Washington Post (who, as we know, has run into difficulties in recent years), Soon-Shiong was seen as someone who would invest a small share of his billions into rebuilding the Times so that it could re-emerge as a profitable and growing enterprise.
Instead, Soon-Shiong showed little of the patience and judgment needed to pull it off. Worse, he used his position on the board of Tribune Publishing to allow that chain’s nine large-market daily newspapers to fall into the hands of the notorious hedge fund Alden Global Capital, and later sold The San Diego-Tribune (which he’d acquired as part of the LA Times deal) directly to Alden.
Meanwhile, the Times has endured cut after cut under Soon-Shiong’s stewardship, including about 115 employees, or more than 20% of the newsroom, earlier this year.
As Rick Edmonds writes of the new initiative:
While the announcement does not criticize the Los Angeles Times directly, it has numerous veiled references to what the initiative’s founders find wrong with the legacy newspaper. Its first sentence says the initiative has been undertaken in response to “drastic losses in local journalism resources.”
The shame of it is that there are only so many philanthropic dollars out there, and the money and energy being invested in Los Angeles could have been directed elsewhere — if only Soon-Shiong thought of himself as a genuine steward of journalism in Southern California.
Talking about the media with ‘SouthCoast Matters’
About once a year I drive down to Taunton in order to appear on “SouthCoast Matters,” a public affairs program hosted by Paul Letendre, to talk about a variety of media issues.
This year Paul was joined by Lean Camara, the CEO at The New Bedford Light, a vibrant nonprofit news outlet. Part one of our conversation aired on Sept. 5 and part two on Sept. 7. Paul is a terrific host, and I always enjoy appearing on his program.
Kamala Harris may have turned in the best performance in the history of national TV debates
After Tuesday night’s debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, I was trying to think of a better performance than Harris’.
The proper superlative was hard to come by. Joe Biden humiliated Paul Ryan in the 2012 vice presidential debate but was no better than good enough against Trump in 2020. Barack Obama, for all his rhetorical gifts, was only a so-so debater. Ronald Reagan may have won the 1980 election when he turned to President Jimmy Carter and said, “There you go again,” but Reagan was hardly a master of thrust-and-parry. I have not gone back and watched the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960, but historians have said that people who listened on the radio actually thought Richard Nixon won.
So yes, it’s possible that Harris’ overwhelmingly dominant performance was the best in the history of televised national debates. What was so impressive was that she did not do particularly well in the 2019 Democratic primary debates, though she smoked Mike Pence a year later. And before you say, well, Trump helped Harris by melting down, a lot of that had to do with her.
Trump’s not easy to debate — just ask Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. His firehose of lies makes it difficult to find a point of entry. Harris did it by getting under his skin early on and making him lose his cool. Her body language was superb. She made sure to mention that he’s been found liable for sexual assault and faces sentencing in an unrelated criminal case. In retrospect, it’s a good thing that Harris lost her bid to keep both mics on throughout, since forcing Trump to stay (relatively) quiet allowed her to build her case.
My former Northeastern colleague Alan Schroeder, a leading historian of presidential debates, put it this way on Twitter/X:
The worst possible version of Trump showed up for this debate tonight. Harris had him on the defensive from the opening handshake, and that’s where he stayed for the rest of the night. This is as clear-cut a win as I’ve seen in a presidential debate.
Here I’ll note that a few non-MAGA pundits were less than impressed with Harris. “For those voters looking for answers on policy, the debate is unlikely to have left them feeling better informed,” wrote New York Times opinion editor Kathleen Kingsbury. Boston Globe political analyst James Pindell actually gave Harris a “C” and Trump a “C-minus,” saying, “Within the context of this campaign, this was a missed opportunity for Harris. She didn’t truly stand out.” I honestly don’t know what to say except: Good Lord, what were they watching?
The right is freaking out over the ABC News debate moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis, for having the temerity to call out a few of Trump’s more egregious lies. But though you can make the case that fact-checking should be on the candidates, the moderators shouldn’t sit there liked potted plants, either. It shouldn’t have been left solely to Harris to highlight Trump’s grotesque lies about non-existent abortion laws that allow just-born babies to be “executed” and fake memes claiming that undocumented immigrants are eating dogs and cats. Oliver Darcy put it this way in his media newsletter:
While it was not feasible for Muir and Davis to correct every lie that streamed from Trump’s mouth, the duo admirably worked to ensure that on issues of major importance, the debate was not reduced to a he-said, she-said. Instead, ABC News made certain that the debate was tethered to reality and that brazen mis-and-disinformation was not given a free haven to infect the public discourse.
The questions for the most part were very good, too, getting into real substance about Trump’s unfitness to lead — especially his racism and his role in the failed coup of Jan. 6, 2021.
Then again, Trump continually turned questions that should have been helpful to him against himself, especially regarding the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan that took place under President Biden’s watch. I mean, who is “Abdul,” anyway?
And to top it off, Taylor Swift endorsed Harris after the debate ended, signing off her Instagram post as “Childless Cat Lady.”
The Washington Post checked in with 25 uncommitted swing-state voters after the debate; 23 said Harris performed better and only two thought Trump did. There’s also this remarkable finding from CNN’s flash poll of registered voters who watched the debate:
Debate watchers said, 63% to 37%, that Harris turned in a better performance onstage in Philadelphia. Prior to the debate, the same voters were evenly split on which candidate would perform more strongly, with 50% saying Harris would do so and 50% that Trump would. And afterward, 96% of Harris supporters who tuned in said that their chosen candidate had done a better job, while a smaller 69% majority of Trump’s supporters credited him with having a better night.
Two and a half months ago, President Biden turned in what might have been the worst debate performance in history, raising questions about his age and stamina and ultimately forcing him out of the race — and overshadowing Trump’s own miserable lie-infested performance. Last night we saw exactly the opposite.
Will it matter? Probably not. The race remains unimaginably tight. But for 90 minutes, Kamala Harris made the best possible case for herself and Donald Trump made the worst. That has to count for something.
NH Supreme Court throws out libel suit brought by man accused of espousing white supremacy
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled that an op-ed piece published in the New Hampshire Union Leader claiming that a resident of Hanover had espoused “white supremacist ideology” was not libelous. The reason: the writer was expressing an opinion rather than making a factual assertion.
According to Grace McFadden of New Hampshire Public Radio, the plaintiff, Daniel Richards, sued the Union Leader and op-ed writer Robert Azzi for a piece that Azzi wrote in 2021 lumping Richards with former Republican politico Newt Gingrich and several others. Azzi castigated them for trying to keep anti-racist instructional materials out of the public schools. (Note: NHPR renders the plaintiff’s name as “Richard,” but it appears as “Richards” in the original op-ed and in court documents.) The passage at issue:
Desperate to stay bonded to America’s original sins of slavery and genocide of indigenous peoples, Gingrich, Frank Edelblut, Dan Richards, Mike Moffett, Joseph Mendola, and others have disseminated, across multiple media platforms, white supremacist ideology to keep Americans from learning an unexpurgated American history from its 1619 origins alongside the dominant White 1776 narrative.
Richards appealed to the state’s highest court after losing at a lower level. Richards had attracted Azzi’s attention by submitting public testimony in favor of a bill prohibiting some classroom discussions about race, according to the NHPR story. The bill passed but was later thrown out by a federal court judge. The state Supreme Court said in its ruling:
Reading the op-ed as a whole, we agree with the trial court that the op-ed merely expressed the author’s political opinions and beliefs that he individually held about the plaintiff and others not based on any undisclosed defamatory facts.
Azzi and the Union Leader were assisted in their defense by way of an amicus brief from the ACLU of New Hampshire, the New England First Amendment Coalition and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders.
It’s a basic part of libel law that opinion is protected speech. Although it’s possible to run afoul of the law by stating a false fact within an opinion article, opinions are not by themselves actionable. As an illustration of that principle, the Supreme Court approvingly quoted the ruling by the lower court, which found that Azzi’s op-ed could not be found libelous because “whether a statement espouses white supremacist ideology is a matter of socio-political opinion that differs between individuals.” Yet the very fact that this case has been hanging around since 2021 shows how even futile legal actions can chill free speech and the free press.
As Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, put it in a statement: “People and the press — despite pressure and intimidation from those with financial resources who vehemently disagree with them — have a First Amendment right to voice their opinion without fear of litigation from those who seek to stifle criticism.”
Richards also sued for invasion of privacy, and that claim was thrown out as well.
Poynter pushes back against gloom and doom; plus, transitions in Colorado and Maine
The Poynter Institute has published an in-depth report on the state of journalism that’s aimed at injecting some optimism into what often seems like a dreary and depressing landscape. The report is called “OnPoynt,” and the introduction says in part:
[D]oom-and-gloom narratives that cherry pick stories of vulture capitalists, job loss statistics and print closures are incomplete or out of date, painting an inaccurate picture of a news and information ecosystem on life support.
OnPoynt aims to offer a forward-minded look at the state of journalism and the news industry that propels the story by considering trends related to creative product ideas, audience growth strategies and traction around revenue, artificial intelligence and innovation.
The entire report is worth reading, but I want to take note of two sections — one on trust, the other on local news.
The narrative that the public has lost trust in the news media overlooks the reality that people actually have a fair amount of faith in their local news outlets. For instance, a survey that Poynter conducted found that 83% of respondents believe that local news organizations “are at least somewhat important to the well-being of their local community,” and 71% say local journalists are reporting the news accurately. The numbers are only slightly lower for Republicans than they are for Democrats. The report continues:
Audiences will spend more time and money with sources of information that they “trust.” Civic participation will grow as trust in media grows. Accessible local news improves democratic participation.
This really goes to the heart of a central argument that Ellen Clegg and I explore in our book, “What Works in Community News.” National news organizations, especially the cable outlets, are contributing to polarization and to the decline of civic life. Rebuilding the local news infrastructure could help lower the temperature and help people on different sides of the political divide find common ground.
Fortunately, as Poynter says in its section on local news, there are viable alternatives to corporate-owned chain newspapers, which in too many cases are being hollowed out and leaving communities bereft. Poynter identifies local television news, public radio and the rise of philanthropy in supporting nonprofit community journalism as countervailing trends.
“The local news ecosystem is complex. The loss of traditional local news journalism jobs should not be minimized, but the battle cry of ‘saving local news’ is oversimplified,” the report says. “Hundreds of news or niche information sites have started in recent years. Many are independent, many represent new offerings from existing companies.”
Poynter’s survey also shows that people who are engaged in civic life are more likely to be local news consumers — a finding that goes back at least to Robert Putnam’s landmark 2000 book “Bowling Alone.”
There’s a lot of bad news out there, and it would be pollyannaish to pretend otherwise. But it’s crucial to look at success stories, figure out why they’re working and encourage people to emulate them in their own communities.
Transition at The Colorado Sun
The Colorado Sun, a digital startup that we profile in “What Works in Community News,” announced a major reorganization last week. Editor and co-founder Larry Ryckman will now be the publisher, with senior editor and fellow co-founder Dana Coffield moving up to the editor’s slot.
In an announcement, the Sun said the shuffle was motivated in part by the Sun’s transition from a for-profit public benefit company to a nonprofit organization, which has created “new responsibilities for its senior leadership.”
The Sun was founded six years ago by 10 journalists at The Denver Post who quit out of frustration over repeated cuts by the paper’s hedge-fund owner, Alden Global Capital. Today the Sun employs two dozen staff members.
Ryckman was a guest on our “What Works” podcast in July. Coffield, who came from a background of small newspapers in the rural parts of Colorado, told us for our book that she was proud of the Sun’s role in reporting stories from across the state that can be republished for free in smaller newspapers.
“We’ve been able to provide quality journalism to some of the smallest outlets in the state,” she said. “I like being able to contribute to a healthy ecosystem for smaller newspapers, since I came from that heritage.”
A new editor in Maine
The Maine Trust for Local News, a nonprofit organization that publishes the for-profit Portland Press Herald and about a dozen other daily and weekly newspapers, has named an executive editor to oversee the trust’s holdings.
Carolyn Fox, currently managing editor of the Tampa Bay Times, will start her new position on Oct. 7. Her appointment was announced by Lisa DeSisto, the trust’s publisher and CEO.
Like the Maine papers, the Tampa Bay Times is a for-profit paper owned by a nonprofit — the Poynter Institute.
“The nonprofit model is so exciting in part because you can make that pitch to people that the journalism matters — what we do matters — and then sell that,” Fox told Eric Russell of the Press Herald. (I’m quoted as well.)
Fox will succeed Steve Greenlee, who’s moved on to a faculty position at Boston University. The organizational structure will be different in that Greenlee was the editor of just the Press Herald, whereas Fox will oversee all of the trust’s holdings.
The New York Times reports that the far-right media ecosystem is awash in Russian cash
The New York Times is doing some crucially important work on how the far-right media in this country are being influenced by Russian money.
The latest is a report detailing how $10 million from Russia (free link) was funneled to a Canadian couple who set up a company in Tennessee called Tenet Media that paid right-wing influencers to produce pro-Kremlin messages for their site. The story is based on Justice Department documents. The couple, Lauren Chen and Liam Donovan, have not been charged, and the influencers themselves may be dupes. So far, the only charges that have been filed are against two RT employees accused of violating money-laundering laws.
But the Times’ reporting shows that vast chunks of the right-wing media ecosystem is awash in Russian cash, “trafficking in pointed political commentary as well as conspiracy theories about election fraud, Covid-19, immigrants and Russia’s war with Ukraine.” The influence extended all the way to Tayler Hansen, who filmed the shooting of Ashli Babbitt at the Capitol during the attemped coup of Jan. 6, 2021.
I have to confess that I had not heard of these influences. They are not name brands like, say, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro or Candace Owens. But in many respects their messages are similar, and they help spread pro-Russian propaganda across a range of social media platforms.
You can fault Attorney General Merrick Garland for moving too slowly on a number of fronts. But at least this time, unlike 2016, we’re learning about Russian attempts to influence the presidential campaign before Election Day.
The Internet Archive loses its appeal to lend e-books without permission
The Internet Archive has lost again in its bid to continue offering access to e-books for free and without any compensation to publishers or authors.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, based in New York, ruled on Wednesday that U.S. District Court Judge John Koeltl had acted correctly in finding for four major book publishers who sued the Archive for copyright infringement. Emma Roth has the story at The Verge.
The nonprofit Archive is one of the most useful corners of the internet, offering free access to web pages that otherwise would have disappeared and working with copyright holders to keep defunct publications available for viewing — such as, for example, The Boston Phoenix, one of my former haunts.
But the Archive chose a very odd hill to defend by insisting that it had a right to offer e-books without paying for a license from publishers, as libraries typically must do. The Archive claimed that it was in compliance with copyright law because it limited e-book borrowing to correspond with physical books that it had in its collection or that was owned by one of its partner libraries. That’s not the way it works, though.
Please support this free source of news and commentary by becoming a member for just $5 a month. You’ll receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive early content and other goodies.
As the appeals court’s decision observes, public and academic libraries must purchase licenses for e-books even though they also hold physical copies of those books. “Critically, IA [the Internet Archive] and its users lack permission from copyright holders to engage in any of these activities,” according to the decision. “They do not license these materials from publishers, nor do they otherwise compensate authors in connection with the digitization and distribution of their works.”
The Archive claimed a fair-use exception to copyright law, a four-part test that the courts apply to determine whether copyrighted material can be used without permission. The court ruled in favor of the publishers on all four tests, mainly because the Archive had copied books in their entirety rather than just excerpts and because that practice could harm the potential market for those books. The decision concludes with some fairly harsh language:
IA asks this Court to bless the large scale copying and distribution of copyrighted books without permission from or payment to the Publishers or authors. Such a holding would allow for widescale copying that deprives creators of compensation and diminishes the incentive to produce new works. This may be what IA and its amici prefer, but it is not an approach that the Copyright Act permits.
The Archive has responded by removing some 500,000 books from its online library, explaining:
We understand that this is a devastating loss for our patrons, and we are fighting back through the courts to restore access to these books. Fortunately, other countries and international library organizations are moving to support controlled digital lending. We appreciate your patience and understanding as we fight this long battle.
I’m not sure what legal steps are available to the Archive other than appealing to the Supreme Court. Given that both Judge Koeltl and the Court of Appeals simply applied existing copyright law in a straightforward manner, it’s hard to imagine that the Supremes would be interested unless they possess some previously undetected enthusiasm for upending the law in its entirety.
My views should not be taken as a value judgment. The folks at the Internet Archive have always been among the good guys of digital culture — one of the last pure outposts from the early days of internet idealism, along with Wikipedia and very few others. The giant book publishers simply want to maximize their profits, and authors are not going to benefit from Wednesday’s decision outside a few bestselling behemoths at the top. Journalist Dan Gillmor put it this way on Mastodon:
Others have said this, but the Internet Archive’s appeals-court loss to Big Publishing is a disaster for everyone but the cartel of companies and a tiny number of A list authors.
The publishers will tolerate libraries only as long as they can control everything about how books can be loaned. If public libraries were being invented today, the cartel would make their core functions illegal.
The problem, though, is that it is the job of judges to apply the law, not offer a critique of capitalism.
There’s nothing in The Verge story or the Court of Appeals’ decision specifying what penalties the Archive will have to pay. I hope there are none. And though it’s probably too much to hope that the publishers will rethink their approach to e-books in their moment of triumph, they really ought to make some changes.
Digital distribution should have led to an increase in the availability of knowledge. Instead, it’s led to a regime of top-down control that is more restrictive than what prevails in the world of physical books. Try lending an e-book to a friend. That may be one of the reasons that e-books are declining in popularity while physical books are on the upswing.
All of this is playing out at a time when artificial intelligence companies are being sued for gobbling up vast quantities of text without permission. As Kate Knibbs writes for Wired:
The new verdict arrives at an especially tumultuous time for copyright law. In the past two years there have been dozens of copyright infringement cases filed against major AI companies that offer generative AI tools, and many of the defendants in these cases argue that the fair use doctrine shields their usage of copyrighted data in AI training. Any major lawsuit in which judges refute fair use claims are thus closely watched.
Needless to say, AI companies like ChatGPT, Meta and their ilk have far more power and resources at their disposal than a struggling nonprofit like the Internet Archive.
Earlier: