Month: April 2023

Five years after the Denver Rebellion, local news is surviving in Colorado

The Buell Media Center, home of The Colorado Sun. Photo (cc) 2021 by Dan Kennedy.

Of all the alarms that have been sounded over the decline of local news, perhaps none was louder than the one in Denver, Colorado, five years ago this month. In what became known as the Denver Rebellion, editorial page editor Chuck Plunkett wrote a front-page editorial calling for the Post’s hedge-fund owner, Alden Global Capital, to sell the paper to local interests. Plunkett wrote:

We call for action. Consider this editorial and this Sunday’s Perspective offerings a plea to Alden — owner of Digital First Media, one of the largest newspaper chains in the country — to rethink its business strategy across all its newspaper holdings. Consider this also a signal to our community and civic leaders that they ought to demand better. Denver deserves a newspaper owner who supports its newsroom. If Alden isn’t willing to do good journalism here, it should sell The Post to owners who will.

Unfortunately, Alden did not sell; after all, there were still profits to be squeezed out. At one time, the Post employed a newsroom of about 300 people, and its competitor, the Rocky Mountain News, had another 300. But the Rocky was shut down by a different chain owner years ago, and by the time that Plunkett wrote his manifesto, Alden was in the process of downsizing the Post again, from about 100 journalists to 60.

But journalism in Denver survived. Earlier this month, Plunkett wrote an opinion piece for The Colorado Sun looking back on the past five years. The Sun grew out of the Post: 10 senior people left after the rebellion and launched a digital-only news project that has grown to a couple of dozen people. This time around, Plunkett, now at the University of Colorado in Boulder, took a more optimistic view:

So much new talent has bubbled up around us as a result it’s difficult to keep track. The legislature’s got more reporters than you shake a stick at. Who could deny the excellence and the ambition of presenting and covering Denver’s recent mayoral debates?…

Hey, it’s heartening to see media companies banging around like they want to fight. Think of how bad off we’d be if we didn’t have such energy.

What’s happened in Colorado led Ellen Clegg and me to include it in our book, “What Works in Community News,” which will be published by Beacon Press early next year. I visited the Denver area in September 2021 and learned that the metro region is being well served. The Sun, the Post, Colorado Public Radio and another startup, The Denver Gazette, were all doing good work.

The problem, though, was in those places that weren’t within commuting distance of Denver. The news deserts that exist in the rural parts of the state were why The Colorado Sun was trying to provide some statewide coverage rather than merely focusing on Denver. So it was heartening to see that several papers whose owners wanted to move on have been acquired by a small chain. The indefatigable Corey Hutchins of Colorado College reports that O’Rourke Media Group, based in Arizona, is the new owner of Colorado papers in Salida, Buena Vista, Leadville, Park County and Fairplay.

“I feel like I’m taking over newsrooms that are well resourced,” the chain’s CEO, Jim O’Rourke, told Hutchins. “I like that, because that gives us an opportunity to come in and work with this team on things that we can do differently moving forward — things that we could do to help. And it’s better starting from a position like this versus going into a totally distressed situation where the previous company gutted the place.”

The news desert problem is real. But what’s happened in Denver and, now, in rural Colorado demonstrates what I’ve seen since I started reporting on the local news crisis some 15 years ago: Where there is failure there is also opportunity.

More: Ellen and I recently interviewed former Denver Post editor Greg Moore on our podcast, “What Works: The Future of Local News.” And in June 2021, I wrote about how 24 weekly and monthly papers in the Denver suburbs were saved through an effort that included The Colorado Sun.

Catching up with Lesley Stahl’s semi-tough profile of Marjorie Taylor Greene

Happy Easter, everyone! We attended the vigil service at our church early this morning, so I’m only now getting my bearings. We’ll have a family dinner later today, but otherwise things will be pretty quiet.

Right now I’d like to catch up in a piece of overdue media-critic business. Last week “60 Minutes” profiled Marjorie Taylor Greene, the extremist congresswoman from Georgia who was stripped of her committee assignments under the previous Democratic leadership after urging that the then-speaker, Nancy Pelosi, be executed for “treason,” and who is now a confidant of Pelosi’s successor, the loathsome, spineless Kevin McCarthy.

“60 Minutes” took a lot of criticism for providing someone like Greene with a platform. I did not watch it at the time but decided instead to watch it with my graduate ethics students on Wednesday evening. I want to see if their reactions and mine were the same.

I think most of us came away with the view that interviewer Lesley Stahl did an OK job of holding Greene to account. Stahl wasn’t as bad as some of her critics had claimed, although she wasn’t great. I’d give her a “B.” Stahl took a lot of heat for rolling her eyes and responding “Wow. OK.” when Greene doubled down on her horrific libel that Democrats promote pedophilia, but I thought her understated contempt was fairly effective. I also liked the use of Greene’s tweets to show that she was lying when she denied having said things that Stahl cited. Naturally, Greene threw her staff under the bus by claiming someone else wrote the tweets.

On the other hand, Stahl let Greene deny that she’s a QAnon adherent, even though the Democrats-are-pedophiles lie is a key part of QAnon ideology. Stahl also betrayed her establishment bias by asking Greene why she wouldn’t agree to some sort of compromise over the debt ceiling. “The two sides have to come together and hammer it out,” Stahl said. No. What she should have said was that the debt ceiling is a phony issue, and that Greene and other Republicans are refusing to approve borrowing to cover spending that was approved by Congress and has already taken place. What Greene and her ilk are engaged in is hostage-taking, and Stahl should have pointed that out.

Stahl also failed to challenge Greene when she whined that she has been falsely described as a racist and an antisemite. She is, in fact, both, and let’s not forget that she once went so far as to blame the California wildfires on Jewish space lasers.

The real problem with the piece, though, was the framing. Some of my students were put off by scenes of Greene mingling with enthusiastic supporters back in her district, where she’s very popular. I didn’t like the friendly stroll around Greene’s estate.

Greene has emerged as a powerful and influential government official as well as a malignant force in American society. She was eminently worthy of a story by “60 Minutes,” but she shouldn’t have been treated to a profile, even one as semi-tough as the one presided over by Stahl. Instead, it should have been a no-holds-barred look at a dangerous figure in U.S. politics. Greene would have been invited for an interview, but her participation would not have been necessary.

What “60 Minutes” and Stahl gave us wasn’t terrible, but they blew an opportunity to give us something much better.

Following a journalist’s arrest by Putin’s thugs, Nick Daniloff offers his hard-earned wisdom

Nick Daniloff, at right in gray suit, meets with President Ronald Reagan at the White House after his release from a Soviet prison in 1986. Photo via Wikimedia Commons.

My friend and colleague Nick Daniloff has an important op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal about his time in a Soviet prison in 1986, comparing his ordeal to that of Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who was recently arrested by Vladimir Putin’s thugs. At the time of his own arrest, Daniloff was a reporter for U.S. News & World Report. Later he joined Northeastern University’s School of Journalism as a faculty member and director, which is how I got to know him. He writes (free link):

Reporting in Russia has always been risky. The authorities there have never been comfortable with the open flow of information, and they have recently imposed new restrictions on public protests. Several Western news organizations pulled their correspondents to protest recently passed laws that essentially ban independent reporting about the Ukraine invasion. Much of Russia’s independent media have been forced to shut down or to persevere outside the country.

We need to protect and honor the bravery of foreign correspondents, photographers and stringers all over the world, reporting in difficult and dangerous circumstances. And to my fellow Russian correspondent Evan Gershkovich: Courage.

Nick’s memoir, “Of Spies and Spokesmen: My Life as a Cold War Correspondent,” is a terrific look back told by a journalist who made a difference.

The MBTA’s Medford/Tufts restrooms are a real pisser

Phillip Eng, the new head of the MBTA, is going to quickly find out that it’s not just the big things, it’s the little things, too.

Earlier today I made the mile-and-a-half walk from my house to the new, underused Tufts Green Line station. I’d had a big cup of coffee before I left the house, but I figured I could use one of the two restrooms that are right next to the ticket machine. They were locked.

It wasn’t that long ago that they were unlocked. Then, the last time I needed to use one, an employee saw me and unlocked it so I could use it. Remembering that, I knocked on the door of the employees’ lounge. Oh, those aren’t for the public, I was told. What?

Then I saw one of the doors open, so I tried to enter. An employee grabbed the door and prevented me from using it. I let it go — I didn’t want to get charged with assault. Fortunately my bladder calmed down, though I didn’t.

What is this crap? Davis Square has public restrooms. It’s a much more crowded station, and they can get kind of disgusting. But when you gotta go, you gotta go. By contrast, Tufts is a clean, underutilized station with two restrooms, and you can’t use them.

The MBTA’s contempt for the riding public knows no bounds.

A remarkable set of front pages mark Trump’s day in a New York courtroom

Tuesday was, as we keep being told, historic. We don’t know what will happen to Donald Trump next, and he may be faced with more serious charges in Georgia and Washington. These front pages, though, tell quite a story about the former president’s arraignment on felony charges in New York. (From the Freedom Forum’s indispensable Today’s Front Pages website.)

Artificial intelligence writes an op-ed piece on gun control

Photo (cc) 2011 by Louis K.

I’ve been having some fun with AI-generated content recently, posting a description of the MBTA in the voice of Herman Melville and a profile of me that is thoroughly bollixed up with a marketing guru who’s also named Dan Kennedy. Today, though, I offer something a little more serious and practical. I directed ChatGPT to write a 600-word opinion article in favor of gun control. The result is below. It needs a little editing, especially in the lead. I didn’t check the numbers, and ChatGPT is known for producing false facts. The pro-gun control argument is not especially sophisticated. But you can imagine a state legislator doing something like this to write an op-ed for a local news outlet. You may think that’s fine. I think it’s chilling.

Gun control has been a controversial issue in the United States for many years, with strong opinions on both sides of the debate. As an AI language model, I do not have a political affiliation or personal beliefs. However, I can analyze data and research and provide an evidence-based opinion on the topic. Therefore, in this article, I will make a case in favor of gun control.

Firstly, let’s look at the numbers. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), firearms were responsible for 39,740 deaths in the United States in 2018. That is an average of 109 deaths per day, or roughly four deaths every hour. It is undeniable that gun violence is a significant public health issue in this country.

Many people argue that the Second Amendment guarantees their right to bear arms. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable regulation of firearms is constitutionally permissible. Therefore, it is within the government’s power to implement laws and regulations to protect the public from gun violence.

One such regulation could be universal background checks. Current federal law only requires background checks for gun purchases from licensed dealers. However, a loophole exists that allows private sellers, who are not required to be licensed, to sell firearms without conducting a background check. This loophole makes it easy for criminals and individuals with a history of violence to obtain guns.

Universal background checks would close this loophole and ensure that all gun purchases, regardless of the seller, are subject to a background check. This simple change would go a long way in keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals.

Another common-sense regulation would be a ban on assault weapons. These weapons are designed for military use and have no practical purpose in civilian life. They have been used in several high-profile mass shootings, including the tragedies in Las Vegas, Parkland, and Sandy Hook.

Opponents of a ban on assault weapons argue that it would violate their Second Amendment rights. However, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of regulations on specific types of weapons, such as fully automatic weapons, and there is no reason why a similar regulation could not be applied to assault weapons.

Finally, red flag laws could be implemented to allow law enforcement and family members to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others. These laws have already been implemented in several states and have been shown to be effective in preventing gun violence.

In conclusion, gun violence is a serious public health issue in the United States, and reasonable regulations on firearms can help reduce the number of deaths and injuries. Universal background checks, a ban on assault weapons, and red flag laws are all common-sense measures that could be implemented to improve public safety without infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

It is essential to remember that gun control is not about taking away people’s guns or infringing on their rights. It is about finding ways to prevent gun violence while still allowing responsible gun ownership. We can all agree that we want to live in a safe society, and gun control measures can help make that a reality.

Ultimately, the key to reducing gun violence is a collaborative effort between government, law enforcement, and the public. By working together, we can find solutions that respect our rights while keeping us safe.

Shed a tear for Gannett’s Reed, whose compensation has been cut to just $3.4 million

I guess we’ll have to start referring to Mike Reed as Gannett’s $3.4 million man.

According to Gannett’s just-released proxy statement for 2022, Reed, the newspaper chain’s chair and CEO, received nearly $3.4 million in total compensation last year, down from $7.7 million the year before. That’s a decline of 56%, but it’s still a healthy pay package for someone who has wreaked so much destruction on the local news business. It’s also 66 times more than the median salary ($51,035) earned by Gannett employees in 2022, as Don Seiffert observes at the Boston Business Journal. Seiffert broke the news about Gannett’s latest numbers on Friday afternoon.

The main difference in Reed’s compensation package is that he received just $2 million in stock awards in 2022, down from about $6 million in 2021. His base salary was cut slightly as well, from $900,000 to $859,615, but he also received a bonus of $513,652 in 2022, which he did not get in 2021. Finally, he got a 401(k) match of $6,184 in 2022, something he didn’t get in 2021. I guess we can refer to that last as rubbing-it-in money, since Gannett suspended 401(k) matches for its employees last October. If they were restored later on, I haven’t heard about it.

Gannett’s chief financial officer and chief accounting officer, Douglas Horne, received nearly $2.2 million in 2022, up from about $1.75 million the year before. And all but one of Gannett’s nine non-executive board members continued to receive in excess of $200,000 for their part-time work — which, as I reported last August, was at least generous, and perhaps excessive, when compared to other publicly traded companies. You’d think that would especially be the case for Gannett, whose stock price opened 2022 at $5.54 a share and closed the year at $2.03. (It’s now down to $1.87.)

Gannett is our largest newspaper chain, but it’s hard to say exactly how large. At one time it published more than 200 dailies and a slew of weeklies, but it’s been closing weeklies in droves over the past few years. Just last week, Sara Fischer of Axios reported that Reed was predicting the closure of more papers moving forward. Just recently a knowledgeable industry observer told me that they wouldn’t be surprised if Gannett got down to about 30 dailies, including its flagship, USA Today, and zero weeklies in the not-too-distant future.

Gannett’s annual meeting is scheduled for June 3. If the past is any indication, though, the only complaint will be that Reed hasn’t cut enough.