Author: Dan Kennedy

A hearing to revive a Mass. local news commission will be held this Wednesday

Photo (cc) 2024 by Dan Kennedy

Nearly three and a half years after then-Gov. Charlie Baker signed a bill creating a local news commission, the Massachusetts legislature is ready to try again. The first commission lapsed without ever holding a formal meeting (one preliminary meeting was held before all the members had been appointed), so essentially we’re starting from scratch.

A public hearing will be held this Wednesday, June 26, at 10 a.m. to discuss the make-up of a journalism commission, the state of journalism in Massachusetts, and what the public would like to see a commission address. The hearing is being held by the Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business, and will take place in Room B-1 at the Statehouse as well as virtually over Teams. I’ve signed up to testify.

The original legislation would have created a 23-member commission. The new proposal would strip that down to a more workable nine members. I would have been guaranteed a slot on the first commission; there are no guarantees in the new legislation, but I’ve told Rep. Paul McMurtry, D-Dedham, who’s the House chair of the committee, that I’d be willing to serve. I’ve also offered his office some thoughts on how the commission might be structured and what areas it could address.

The local news landscape here has deteriorated considerably since then-Rep. Lori Ehrlich and I first started talking about a commission in 2018. Especially destructive was Gannett’s decision to close or merge a couple dozen of its weekly papers in the spring of 2022 and to jettison nearly all of its local coverage in favor of regional stories from around the chain. (Ellen Clegg and I spoke with Ehrlich on our very first “What Works” podcast in October 2021. Ehrlich is now the regional administrator for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.)

On the bright side, we’ve also seen an upsurge in local news startups in the Boston area, mainly nonprofit. These projects are doing a better job of covering local news than Gannett had in many years. But some communities are without any journalism, and the startups tend to be located in affluent suburbs.

What could a news commission do? That would be up to the members. But a commission could shine a light on independent projects that are doing well in order to inspire folks in other cities and towns to try their hand. And it could propose some policy measures aimed at bolstering local efforts. One that seems especially promising are tax credits for news publishers who hire and retain journalists, as is being done in Illinois and New York. “Tax credits” is a bit of misnomer since they can be structured to benefit nonprofits as well as for-profits that are losing money.

Here’s the full announcement about Wednesday’s hearing:

Please be advised that the Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Businesses will hold a hybrid public hearing on Wednesday, June 26th starting at 10am in Room B-1 to discuss the composition of the Journalism Commission, the current state of journalism in the Commonwealth and matters that interested parties would like to see the commission address once the commission is formed. Instructions for providing oral and written testimony are below.

Date of Hearing: Wednesday, June 26th, 2024
Time: 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM
Location: Room B-2 — Hybrid Hearing via Microsoft Teams
Subject Matter: Journalism

IN-PERSON AND VIRTUAL TESTIMONY: For both in-person and virtual testimony, you must fill out the following form: https://forms.office.com/g/6VKVLTVXjj

WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Written testimony may be submitted to the Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Businesses by emailing the garrett.burns@mahouse.gov

DEADLINE TO PRE-REGISTER: For both in-person and virtual testimony, the deadline to register to testify is 12:00pm, Tuesday, June 25th, 2024. Individuals registered for virtual testimony will receive an email the day before the hearing with a link to join the hearing on Microsoft Teams.

SAME DAY SIGN-UP: Individuals who miss the deadline to pre-register for testimony may appear on the day of the hearing and sign up to speak in-person on forms provided by committee staff. Time permitting, when all pre-registered individuals have been called to testify, the Chairs will then call any individuals who sign up in-person on the day of the hearing.

ORDER OF TESTIMONY: The Chairs, at their discretion, will determine the order of testimony. It is the responsibility of the individuals registered to testify to be prepared to speak when called upon by the Chairs. If an individual is called by the Chairs and that person is not logged into the Teams platform, the Chairs will move on and call the next individual or panel. We respectfully request that all oral testimony be kept to 3 minutes or less.

If you have any questions or concerns please email garrett.burns@mahouse.gov.

Leave a comment | Read comments

Why Lewis’ checkbook journalism in the U.K. will taint The Washington Post

Roy Moore. Video clip (cc) 2017 by Folsom Natural.

Everything you need to know about why Will Lewis can’t stay as publisher of The Washington Post. And this is about one of his lesser scandals: his paying £110,000 to a source in return for information about a parliamentary spending scandal. The Atlantic’s Stephanie McCrummen writes (free link):

Hours after my Washington Post colleagues and I published the first of several articles in 2017 about the Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore’s history of pursuing teenage girls, the Republican nominee’s powerful allies launched an elaborate campaign seeking to discredit the story.

The best-known of these efforts was an attempt carried out by the far-right activist group Project Veritas to dupe us into publishing a false story, an operation we exposed. But there were others, perhaps none more insidious than the spreading of false rumors across Alabama that The Washington Post had paid Moore’s accusers to come forward, and were offering thousands of dollars to other women for salacious stories about him.

So now Robert Winnett is out and Lewis, his enabler in the pay-to-play scheme, remains in his job, at least for the moment. This will not stand.

Leave a comment | Read comments

Washington Post update: Winnett withdraws while Lewis hangs on — for now

Robert Winnett (via LinkedIn)

Robert Winnett will not be joining The Washington Post as executive editor this fall. The announcement (free link) was made by publisher Will Lewis, who is still at his job even though Winnett pulled out after his and Lewis’ gross breaches of journalistic ethics in the U.K. were revealed by several news outlets, including the Post itself.

I continue to believe Lewis isn’t long for his position, either. Two Pulitzer Prize-winning Post journalists, David Maraniss and Scott Higham, have called on Lewis to leave, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see more in a few days.

Under Lewis’ absurd scheme for reorganizing the newsroom, the current interim executive editor, Matt Murray, who was brought in when Sally Buzbee quit rather than accept a demotion, is supposed to move over to run a “third newsroom” this fall that will comprise social media and, well, stuff, none of which Lewis has clearly defined. Murray, in turn, would be replaced by Winnett.

Instead, Winnett will remain as deputy editor of the Telegraph Media Group in the U.K. Murray, who had been editor-in-chief of The Wall Street Journal, has made a good first impression, according to Poynter’s Tom Jones and other accounts I’ve seen, so perhaps he’ll remain as executive editor. But owner Jeff Bezos needs to do something soon — like maybe today — about the Lewis disaster.

Earlier coverage.

Leave a comment | Read comments

Please become a supporter of Media Nation. You’ll get a newsletter with extra goodies.

Photo (cc) 2016 by Dan Kennedy

Every Thursday I post a newsletter that’s exclusively for supporters of Media Nation. I’m especially proud of the new one — a look at how critics of Jeff Bezos’ stewardship of The Washington Post and John Henry’s ownership of the Red Sox have converged into a miasma of resentment and envy. Each newsletter also includes photography, a round-up of the week’s posts and a Song of the Week. I’m especially pleased with what I dug up this week, and I think you’ll be, too.

I launched Media Nation as a source of news and commentary in 2005. It’s free and will remain so. But I hope you’ll consider becoming a supporter for $5 a month. Just click here.

Leave a comment | Read comments

Plymouth official threatens reporter for recording a public, live-streamed meeting

On a Tuesday earlier this month, Fred Thys, a reporter for the Plymouth Independent, took a seat in the front row for that evening’s select board meeting and turned on his audio recorder — openly, and in plain view. You may remember Thys from his long career at WBUR Radio. Now he’s on staff at the Independent, one of the larger and better-funded nonprofit news startups that’s popped up in recent years.

Suddenly a member of the board interrupted the proceedings. As recounted by Independent editor and CEO Mark Pothier, that member, Kevin Canty, proceeded to inform those on hand that state law was being violated because an audio recording was being made without any advance notice being given. Although Canty did not call out Thys by name, Pothier wrote that Canty’s words appeared to be directed at the reporter as he told those in attendance:

There is a wiretapping statute that prohibits the discreet recording of even a public meeting by a private individual or member of the media that is punishable by up to five years in state prison, or two and a half years in jail. So if you are making any recording without making those in the room aware of that, I would encourage you to reconsider that particular stance.

Now, Canty was not 100% wrong, though he was more wrong than right, and his warning was certainly at odds with the interests of governmental transparency. Thus he has richly earned a New England Muzzle Award for attempting to interfere with a journalist who was simply trying to do his job.

Let’s count up the absurdities.

  1. The proceedings were already being live-streamed on YouTube by the local public access operation and would be posted for posterity within a few days of the meeting.
  2. Canty immediately reached for the state wiretapping law, which was sometimes used to stop citizen activists from recording police officers while performing their duties — but which, as Pothier observes, a federal appeals court ruled was a violation of the First Amendment.
  3. If it bothered Canty so much, why he didn’t just take Thys aside at a break in the meeting and ask him to announce that he was recording at future meetings?

Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, told the Independent that “you have a meeting that’s being live streamed and recorded. Certainly, there’s no expectation of privacy here. One really needs to question what the intent was to make that threat of jail time. Was it to intimidate the journalist?”

But Canty, a lawyer, did have a thin reed to grasp onto. Under state law, anyone who plans to make an audio recording of an interview or a gathering needs to inform those present. At one time we all thought that the explicit permission of the party or parties being recorded was necessary, but that was clarified by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court in 2021. Still, you do have to say something.

When I asked Silverman about that, he replied by email that Thys should have notified the chair, although he was within his rights to record whether the chair liked it or not. “That said, I’m not aware of any penalty, if there is one, for not making the announcement,” Silverman said. “I’m also skeptical about whether this requirement would even apply in cases where the meeting is already being recorded by the town and live-streamed.”

Two other points of note.

First, when Canty made his public announcement, he said he was speaking on behalf of the town manager, Derek Brindisi, but Brindisi later suggested that Canty was exaggerating. Brindisi told Pothier that he let a couple of the select board members know that someone was recording and suggested they make an announcement. “So it was nothing other than that … You have to speak to Kevin about why he chose the words that he chose,” Brindisi said.

Canty, for his part, said his remarks were not grounded in any animus toward Thys or the Independent. “It’s just my general practice as a rule as a criminal defense attorney to discourage people from committing felonies,” he said.

Second, Thys said he’s been recording public meetings for years without making an announcement, and he had never run into trouble before. As it turns out, the meeting was covering was unusually fraught — the select board was removing a founding member of the Community Preservation Committee who had chaired it since it was established in 2002. If you can’t stand the heat, etc.

Leave a comment | Read comments

Drip, drip, drip

Three new data points in the ongoing implosion of Washington Post publisher Will Lewis:

• While working for then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Lewis reportedly urged Johnson and other senior officials to “clean up” their phones — that is, to remove photos and other incriminating information that could be used against them in an investigation into violations of COVID-19 lockdown rules. Spokespeople for Lewis and Johnson deny it (The Guardian).

• We’ve been waiting for a Post legend to weigh in. Neither Bob Woodward nor Marty Baron has been heard from yet, but Pulitzer Prize-winning associate editor David Maraniss has broken his silence. In a post on Facebook, Maraniss wrote: “I don’t know a single person at the Post who thinks the current situation with the publisher and supposed new editor can stand. There might be a few, but very very few. Jeff Bezos owns the Post but he is not of and for the Post or he would understand. The issue is one of integrity not resistance to change.” The “new editor” is Robert Winnett, a longtime associate of Lewis’ who is supposed to become executive editor of the Post this fall (Facebook).

• Post owner Jeff Bezos has written a message to the newsroom assuring the staff that “the journalistic standards and ethics at The Post will not change” and offering his support for Lewis — “though not explicitly,” as CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy observes. It sounds like Bezos wants to buck up Lewis while leaving open the possibility that he’ll have to go. Frankly, that point was reached days ago (CNN.com).

Earlier coverage.

Leave a comment | Read comments

Why a direct government subsidy for local news in Cambridge is a bad idea

Cambridge City Hall. Photo (cc) 2010 by andrew_cosand

Government assistance for journalism exists along a continuum. Media scholars such as Paul Starr and Victor Pickard have observed that the American press got an enormous boost starting in Colonial times by way of generous postal subsidies — a benefit that lasted until several decades ago, when market fundamentalists began demanding that the Postal Service cover its expenses. Public notices — advertisements that government agencies and corporations are legally obliged to take out in order to publicize certain types of meetings, contracts, bids and the like — are another form of subsidy.

As the local news crisis has deepened, other ideas have been put forward. As Ellen Clegg and I write in our book, “What Works in Community News,” an independent board in New Jersey, the Civic Information Consortium, has awarded some $5.5 million to fund reporting and information projects over the past few years. In California, a $25 million appropriation is paying the salaries of recent master’s degree journalism graduates at UC Berkeley to cover underserved communities over a three-year period. Legislators in New York and Illinois are moving toward approving tax credits for local news publishers to hire and retain journalists after similar efforts at the federal level have stalled.

The challenge is to keep government assistance as indirect as possible so that journalism can maintain its vital role as an independent monitor of power. Which is why an idea that’s being discussed in Cambridge goes too far.

Boston Globe reporter Spencer Buell writes that the City Council is considering a proposal to set aside $100,000 a year in public money to support local news over the next three years. If enacted, the money, to be administered by an independent board, could be awarded to Cambridge Day, a longtime and well-regarded local newspaper, as well as other outlets. Among the proponents: Cambridge News Matters, a nonprofit that has been working with Cambridge Day and could partner with others as well. (Disclosure: I’ve offered some advice and counsel to Cambridge News Matters when I’ve been asked, and I told them just recently that I thought this was a dubious idea.)

Mary McGrath of Cambridge News Matters told Buell: “We heard loud and clear that quality local journalism is critical to democracy, that you can’t have a cohesive community without an informed citizenry. The business model to deliver this kind of journalism is broken.” Buell also interviewed me. Here’s what I told him:

We want local news organizations to be able to cover government and other institutions and keep an eye on them — not always in an adversarial way, but always in an independent way. If you’re going to have a direct transfer of money from local government to local news organizations, you’ve lost that. So I just don’t think this is a good idea.

Philosophical objections aside, what’s being discussed is pretty short money to put journalistic independence at risk. As Buell notes, Cambridge News Matters hopes to raise several million dollars in private donations over the next few years. The Boston area is home to many local news startups that were launched in response to the giant newspaper chain Gannett’s abandonment of its weekly newspapers, including the Cambridge Chronicle. None of them, whether nonprofit or for-profit, has had to rely on direct government funding.

I’m a longtime admirer of Cambridge Day and its editor, Marc Levy, as well of McGrath and the folks at the nonprofit. I would love to see more local news coverage in Cambridge than Marc is currently able to provide, and I have no doubt that everyone involved in this would make strenuous efforts not to be influenced by any government funding they might receive. But I just don’t see how this is the way to go.

Leave a comment | Read comments

While we swelter, a look back at the heat wave of April 2002

A hot day on Boston Common. Photo (cc) 2013 via City of Boston archives.

There’s a lot of talk this week to the effect that the heat wave we’re experiencing is unprecedented — or at least unusual — for June. True enough. But I vividly remember a wild stretch of hot weather that hit the Northeast in April 2002. I was in New Jersey and New Haven to interview folks for my first book, “Little People,” and it was over 90 degrees for a day or two that week.

As I was driving through Connecticut, an anchor on NPR said that a new record of more than 90 degrees had been set in Central Park. That night, I met with Anthony Soares, a person with dwarfism who was president of the city council in Hoboken, New Jersey. We sat outside at a restaurant until 11 p.m. in stifling heat and humidity. Here’s how The New York Times put it on April 17, 2002:

After a stubbornly mild winter, a sudden heat wave settled over the New York region yesterday, with the temperature reaching 92 degrees in Central Park at 3:30 p.m. That shattered the previous high for the day of 88, which was reached in 1896.

Elsewhere in the region, records were similarly trounced. In Newark, a high of 90 beat the old record of 82, reached in 1976. And in Bridgeport, it was a full 10 degrees hotter (83 degrees) than on any previous April 16.

In Boston, the temperature on April 17 topped out at 93.2 degrees. Notably, the Boston Marathon had been held just two days earlier, although, fortunately, it didn’t make it out of the 50s that day. And on April 18, it was back in the 50s again.

Climate change is making all of this worse. It was a factor 22 years ago, and it’s even more of one now. I just thought you’d like a reminder that what we’re going through this week is nothing new, and that we’ve had even stranger weather off and on in the past.

Leave a comment | Read comments

A dominant run, a rousing finish: The Celtics have made believers of us all

Photo (cc) 2013 by Michael Tipton

In the end, it wasn’t them. It was us. Since late April, we’ve been watching the Celtics with our eyes half-covered because we told ourselves we’d seen this team fall short so many times before. But that’s not really true. The first legitimate chance the current version of the Celtics had of winning it all was in 2022, and they were outclassed by a much better Golden State team. Last year, yes, they woke up too late and couldn’t overcome Jayson Tatum’s sprained ankle in Game 7 of the conference finals. But that’s the only time they should have gone farther but didn’t.

This year? A dominating regular season followed by a magnificent 16-3 playoff run. By far the best team they played was Indianapolis, and yet that was somehow their only sweep. The other series: 4-1, 4-1 and an emphatic 4-1 against Dallas, which proved to be an inconsistent Luka Doncic and a bunch of guys. As Bob Dylan once put it, “What looks large from a distance, Close up ain’t never that big.”

My favorite Celtics championship team is the 2008 squad, with the incomparable Kevin Garnett along with Paul Pierce and Ray Allen. Yes, I was a fan of the Larry Bird-led 1980s teams and the ’70s-era teams with Dave Cowens, John Havlicek and Paul Silas. But there was something special about 2008.

I may have to revise that. There were so many great story lines this year. Al Horford’s endless quest for a championship, finally fulfilled. Questions about whether Tatum and Jaylen Brown could play together — exaggerated by the media, but not completely without foundation. The emergence of Derek White. The addition of Jrue Holiday. (Admit it: We all feel a little guilty at being glad that fan favorite Marcus Smart isn’t around anymore.) The injuries to Kristaps Porzingis, who managed to play 16 minutes in the closer and actually made a few contributions after a rough start. Joe Mazzulla’s emergence as a decent coach.

I thought Tatum would get the Bill Russell MVP trophy after taking the team onto his shoulders Monday night and carrying them to victory. Brown got it instead, which is fine, because he was more consistent throughout the Finals. His improvement over the past year has been nothing short of remarkable. After utterly failing to step up after Tatum’s sprained ankle against Miami last year, he became the highest-paid player in the NBA over the summer, which had a few of us scratching our heads. And then he went out and earned it, at least to the extent that anyone can “earn” $286 million. How fitting is it that he’s now won playoff trophies named for Russell and Bird?

By adding Holiday and Porzingis last year, Brad Stevens turned an almost-good-enough team into the NBA’s best. If the Celtics are going to have a chance at repeating, though, Stevens may need to work some magic again. I’d be astonished if Horford doesn’t retire. Porzingis needs surgery on his ankle, and he may be better suited to a 20-minutes-a-game role as a bench player given his fragility. Can Stevens bring in a reliable big man? Other than that, though, the Celtics are well-positioned for another championship run.

Leave a comment | Read comments