The murder trial of Karen Read is, without question, one of the strangest spectacles we’ve seen in Massachusetts for a long time.
Read has been charged with driving over her boyfriend, former Boston police officer John O’Keefe, and leaving him to die in a snowbank. Read counters that she’s being framed — that, in fact, O’Keefe was beaten up, bitten by a dog and dragged outside. Adding to all of this is a murky federal investigation of the Norfolk County district attorney’s office and the involvement of Aiden Kearney, the Turtleboy blogger who has taken up Read’s cause and who’s been charged with witness intimidation and illegal wiretapping.
In one sense, though, it’s a very familiar story. Crucially important evidence is being withheld from the public because of our state’s restrictive public records laws. As Sean Cotter reports in The Boston Globe, autopsy reports are not considered public records in Massachusetts. We’re not unique in that regard. Citing information from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Cotter writes that among the very few states where autopsy records are considered public are Alabama, Colorado, California and Florida.
“If the public cannot see the documents that judges rely on in the course of making decisions, the public cannot make decisions on whether the judge’s decisions are correct,” First Amendment lawyer Jeffrey Pyle told the Globe.
The Norfolk DA’s office turned down the Globe’s public records request, with spokesman David Traub telling the paper, “The examination and cross-examination of the medical examiner will be where you get your answers.”
Massachusetts has long had a reputation for being among the worst states with regard to open government. About a decade ago, the Center for Public Integrity gave the state a D-plus in an overall accountability score as well as an F for public access to information. The state’s public records law was strengthened in 2016, but it remains woefully inadequate.
So let’s give a New England Muzzle Award to the Massachusetts legislature for failing to take any meaningful action to ensure that the public’s business will be conducted in public. The autopsy report on Officer O’Keefe’s death should be made public — and that’s just a small part of the much larger problem that our elected officials would rather operate in the dark than let the light shine in.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who’s been an indispensable voice of reason since Oct. 7, has another must-read column (free link), this one urging Israel to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia rather than proceed with an all-out assault against the Gazan city of Rafah.
Three media-related follow-ups to this morning’s post on the arrests of pro-Palestinian protesters at Northeastern University.
• As I noted earlier, university spokeswoman Renata Nyul issued a statement in which she cited “virulent antisemitic slurs, including ‘Kill the Jews’” as a precipitating factor in ordering that the encampment be dismantled and the police be brought in. Now there are reports that “Kill the Jews” might actually have been uttered by a pro-Israel counter-protester.
GBH News reporter Tori Bedford tweeted, “I did hear ‘kill the Jews,’ said by a counter-protester holding an Israeli flag, seemingly as a provocative joke in response to the group’s pro-Palestine chants. Not sure if that’s the specific incident @Northeastern leadership is referring to.” She also shared a video provided to her by Huskies for a Free Palestine.
Northeastern’s student newspaper, The Huntington News, acknowledged in an update at 12:15 p.m. today that the statement was indeed made by a counter-protester, and The Boston Globe has added this: “The student group behind the protests disputed that claim, saying that no one in the encampment shouted slurs, and that it was a counter-protestor who yelled ‘Kill the Jews.’”
• Earlier this morning, I read in the Globe that reporters had been asked by police to leave the scene. But when I went to write it up, that passage was gone. Sarah Scire of Nieman Lab, though, saved it and posted it on Twitter:
Northeastern started to clear the pro-Palestine encampment on campus early this morning. Police told news media to “go home,” too. pic.twitter.com/wmTnpDLIy5
I don’t know why the Globe deleted that section from its story. Maybe a judgment was made that the officer was directing their statements to bystanders in general rather than journalists in particular. It also sounds like advice rather than an order. As for whether the Globe should have acknowledged the edit, I’ll just observe that it’s pretty standard for news outlets to revise and delete in their online running coverage without indicating whether any changes have been made. Good practice? Maybe not. But hardly unusual.
• Student reporters were told to back off from the immediate scene after police officers surrounded the encampment. In an update posted today at 5:30 a.m., the News published this: “Several members of The News’ staff were asked to move outside the barricade.” That does not strike me as inappropriate as long as the reporters were allowed to remain close enough to observe what was going on. Still, it’s worth noting.
The pro-Palestinian encampment at Northeastern University has come to an end, as Boston Police arrested about 100 people early this morning. Our student journalists have been doing a great job of covering the protest, not only for The Huntington News (on Twitter/X and on their live blog) but also for The Boston Globe, where several co-op students have been on the scene. Their work has been exceptional, presented fairly and without an agenda.
I was on campus Friday afternoon and walked around the perimeter a few times. I did not attempt to engage with any of the protesters. What struck me was how small the encampment on Centennial Common was, although there were plenty of people packed inside the perimeter. The Huntington News placed the number at about 200.
One development that no doubt hastened the end of the encampment was a turn toward explicit antisemitism on the part of at least some of the protesters. At 6:25 a.m. today, the News quoted a statement from Renata Nyul, the university’s vice president for communications:
Earlier this morning the Northeastern University Police Department (NUPD) — in cooperation with local law enforcement partners — began clearing an unauthorized encampment on the university’s Boston campus. What began as a student demonstration two days ago, was infiltrated by professional organizers with no affiliation to Northeastern. Last night, the use of virulent antisemitic slurs, including ‘Kill the Jews,’ crossed the line. We cannot tolerate this kind of hate on our campus.
The Globe report included this detail about rising hostilities between the protesters and pro-Israel counter-protesters: “At one point, a person called out, ‘Kill the Jews,’ while others yelled, ‘No right to exist,’ at the two counterprotesters holding the Israeli flag. Campus police later escorted the men away from the encampment.”
[Note: The antisemitic threat appears to have been uttered by a pro-Israel counter-protester. See update.]
As part of clearing the site, approximately 100 individuals were detained by police. Students who produced a valid Northeastern ID were released. They will face disciplinary proceedings within the university, not legal action. Those who refused to disclose their affiliation were arrested.
What none of us have any way of knowing is whether this ends the protest or if it will escalate. Northeastern is on a different schedule from most colleges and universities; classes and finals are now over. But commencement season is now upon us, with multiple ceremonies scheduled for the various colleges and two large university-wide celebrations at Fenway Park next Sunday, May 5.
On the latest “What Works” podcast, Ellen Clegg and I talk with Mike Blinder, the publisher of Editor & Publisher magazine, which is now much, much more than a magazine. It’s a cutting-edge multimedia source of information on innovation in our industry. Mike hosts E&P’s weekly vodcast series, “E&P Reports.” He’s also been a guest on this podcast previously, and today’s he’s back to talk about a new venture.
Blinder has a new vertical on public media called Public Pulse. It’s newsy and filled with insider information. It aggregates the latest on stories like conflict ignited by Uri Berliner at NPR, and features reporting on trends like the collaboration of universities and public radio stations. There’s already an excellent publication in this space called Current, and Public Pulse is a welcome addition to that.
Dan gives a shoutout to a New Hampshire news project previously featured on the podcast. InDepthNH recently revealed some pretty disturbing details about a state representative — and it came only after a four-year quest to obtain public records. It demonstrates why journalists need to be persistent.
Richard J. Tofel has been looking into the details of legislation that created a $90 million fund to ease the local news crisis in New York State, and he has some questions. The two most important: Are newspapers owned by publicly traded companies truly excluded, as initial reports would suggestion? And what, exactly, is a newspaper?
As I wrote the other day, the program would seem to exclude Gannett, a publicly traded corporation that owns 12 daily newspapers in New York, including the Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester and the Times Herald-Record of Middletown. But Tofel isn’t sure of that, observing that “a separate provision makes all of the newspapers eligible, despite being owned by public companies, because their print circulation has declined by more than 20% in the last five years — as has that of almost every print publication in the country.”
The other major issue is whether digital-only outlets would be eligible. Tofel writes that “whether digital news organizations will be included within what the law refers to as ‘newspapers’” is still up in the air, adding that if “the regulatory definition of ‘newspapers’ excludes digital entrants and isn’t targeted at local news jobs, the bill will have amounted to a belated incumbency protection act for a failing field.”
Among the 200 members of the Empire State Local News Coalition who pushed for this legislation is The Batavian, a digital-only for-profit in western New York. I’ve already heard from Howard Owens, the publisher, who’s worried that his outlet may not be eligible for any subsidies unless the language is clarified.
The fund would set aside $30 million a year for three years to provide assistance to local news organizations that hire and retain journalists — although that, too, is unclear; it’s possible the money would be used for business-side employees, Tofel says. It could serve as a model for other states, but first the details have got to be nailed down.
In an appearance on Editor & Publisher’s vodcast earlier this week, Zachary Richner, the founder of the Empire State coalition, said that the final language had yet to be fully worked out. That will be done not through legislation but administratively, via a governmental agency called Empire State Development.
The Berkeley Beacon, the student newspaper at Emerson College, has a live blog covering the arrest of students who have been camping out to protest on behalf of Palestinian rights in reaction to the Israel-Hamas war. More than 100 protesters have been taken into custody, the Beacon reports, citing the Emerson chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.
Student journalists have received a lot of much-deserved praise for their coverage of these encampments. In particular, the Columbia Daily Spectator has established itself as the go-to source for reporting on protests at Columbia University.
Update: The Huntington News has tweeted that students are setting up an encampment on Centennial Common at Northeastern University. On the one hand, I’ve been wondering when this might happen. On the other, we’re a week or two ahead of most schools; classes are out, and finals are nearly over.
BREAKING: Dozens of Northeastern student protesters have begun setting up an encampment on Centennial Common. More to follow. pic.twitter.com/ar1C7QMU4b
There are many reasons that can be cited for the crisis in which much of the news media finds itself. Essentially, though, journalism is attempting to adjust to two massive black swan events.
The first was the rise of the internet, which destroyed much of the business model for newspapers and magazines by transferring the vast majority of advertising revenues to Craigslist, Google, Facebook and Amazon. Yes, some publications have survived and even thrived by persuading their readers to pick up the costs in the form of digital subscriptions. But we are a long way from the days when ads accounted for 80% of a typical newspaper’s income.
The second is playing out right now: the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is devastating public radio, our most important source of free news. Even as newspaper paywalls have excluded those who either can’t afford or don’t wish to pay, NPR and its network of local public radio stations have remained free to all. Now a dramatic change in listening patterns is threatening all that.
That threat hit Boston big-time on Wednesday, as WBUR announced it was cutting 31 employees, 24 through a voluntary buyout and seven through layoffs. According to Aidan Ryan of The Boston Globe, the cuts amount to 14% of the station’s staff and will save the station $4 million. WBUR reporter Todd Wallack, in the station’s own story on downsizing, writes that the cuts will “help offset a steep decline in on-air sponsorships, also known as underwriting.”
“We didn’t have a choice financially,” WBUR chief executive Margaret Low was quoted as saying. “We ultimately need to make as much money as we’re spending.” Wallack added that other costs will be trimmed as well.
WBUR’s news competitor, GBH, is also facing financial challenges and may soon announce its own round of layoffs, the Globe reported last month. And those local problems come in the midst of a national challenge that has hit station after station as well as NPR itself.
In The New York Times, Benjamin Mullin and Jeremy W. Peters report that NPR has been dealing with a massive slippage in audience in recent years. Here is the heart of their story:
NPR’s traditional broadcast audience, still the bulk of its listenership, is in long-term decline that accelerated when the pandemic interrupted long car commutes for millions of people. The network has begun to sign up digital subscribers who pay for ad-free podcasts, but that business has lagged far behind that of its competitors.
While NPR still has an audience of about 42 million who listen every week, many of them digitally, that is down from an estimated 60 million in 2020, according to an internal March audience report, a faster falloff than for broadcast radio, which is also in a long-term decline.
That’s a drop of 30% in listenership since just before COVID. Given that many people are now working in person three days a week rather than five, that drop correlates pretty directly with the change in driving habits. NPR has tried to offset the decline with podcasts, but where do people listen to podcasts? For many, it’s in their cars. In any case, there’s little money in podcasts except for a few at the very top. The rise of podcasts has also exacerbated tensions between NPR and its member stations, since the network can distribute them directly without relying on the stations. More than anything, fewer listeners means fewer donors.
One interesting tidbit in the Times story relates to former senior business editor Uri Berliner’s error-filled screed about NPR’s shift to the progressive left — a shift he attributed in part to the network’s embrace of various diversity initiatives. As Mullin and Peters write, NPR was seeking to diversify its on-air talent not just because it was the right thing to do but because top executives were desperately seeking to expand their audience beyond affluent, aging white suburbanites. For the most part, they say, it hasn’t worked:
NPR’s leaders redoubled their efforts to diversify their audience and work force and closely tracked metrics for each. They added podcasts aimed at people of color and younger listeners. They promoted people of color to high-profile reporting and hosting jobs. All of these moves were meant to ensure the nation’s public radio network would remain competitive as the country’s population continued to grow more diverse.
So it came as a disappointment to some people on NPR’s board last fall when they were presented with new internal data showing their efforts hadn’t moved the needle much with Black and Hispanic podcast listeners.
As with newspaper executives trying to adjust to the internet era, public radio leaders have made plenty of mistakes along the way, and the Times story includes a number of bone-headed moves. Few, though, rival what’s taking place at WAMU in Washington, D.C., which earlier this year closed its DCist local website and has been beset by turmoil ever since.
Andrew Beaujon, writing for Washingtonian, recently posted a wild story of what’s taking place inside WAMU, leading off with a killer anecdote: the legendary Diane Rehm’s apparently having her mic cut when she dared to speak up at an internal staff meeting with general manager Erika Pulley-Hayes. Beaujon includes this exchange:
“What I did not understand,” Rehm said during the March 6 meeting, “was the layoff of a fine reporter like Jacob Fenston or the director of technology, Rob Bertrand, or James Coates —”
“Diane,” Pulley-Hayes interrupted.
“— who just two years ago won a prestigious award here at the university,” Rehm continued. “And so it would have seemed that you sort of publicized that you were taking down DCist. But you did not talk much about the other — that other staff members who were losing their jobs. It’s as though they just disappeared because somebody didn’t want them here anymore —”
Multiple staffers say that at this point they saw Rehm’s mouth moving, but she produced no sound. Rehm declined to comment for this article, but she told other staffers that she did not mute herself.
“Diane, thanks for your feedback,” Pulley-Hayes said, as the 50-plus-year veteran of public broadcasting appeared to continue to try to speak. “But it’s really inappropriate to talk about HR decisions in a public forum. So I’m not at liberty to address it in this forum, to talk to you. You’re asking HR questions that I cannot answer.” Pulley-Hayes then called on another employee.
“Diane Rehm is a legend,” one WAMU staffer tells Washingtonian. “We were all shocked.”
Critics like Uri Berliner would have us believe that public radio is suffering because of liberal bias, but that’s based on the dubious premise that there is some large bloc of conservative listeners who’ve stopped listening, or that underwriters suddenly were offended by what they heard. There is no evidence for either proposition. Rather, this is a business problem, and it’s not at all clear what the solution is going to be.
Just as newspapers have found there was nothing quite like the glory days of monopoly print, public radio executives are discovering that they benefited at one time from a unique set of circumstances that no longer exists — an era when broadcast radio was the audio format of choice; when commuters were stuck in the cars five days each week; and when deregulation led to the decline of commercial radio as stations were scooped up by corporate chains that destroyed what made them unique.
Finding a way to solve those challenges is not going to be easy.
New York will become the first state to offer a tax credit aimed at helping local news organizations. According to Rebuild Local News, which has been pushing for several different tax credits at the federal and state levels, the New York legislature and Gov. Kathy Hochul have agreed to a budget provision that will set aside $30 million a year for three years in order to offset the cost of hiring and retaining journalists.
Although the plan is multi-faceted, there are two aspects that I think are especially worthy of note.
The first is that calling it a “tax credit” is something of a misnomer — rather, it’s a payroll credit available to all news publishers, including nonprofits, which don’t pay taxes, and for-profits operating at a loss, which are also exempt from taxes under most circumstances. Zachary Richner, the founder of the 200-member Empire State Local News Coalition, explained that in a recent appearance on “E&P Reports,” a vodcast hosted by Mike Blinder, publisher of the trade publication Editor & Publisher. Given the importance of nonprofit startups in helping to solve the local news crisis, it makes sense to include them.
The second is that newspapers owned by publicly traded corporations are ineligible for assistance. That would exclude Gannett, the country’s largest newspaper chain, which is notorious for its slash-and-burn approach to managing its newsrooms. According to the chain’s website, Gannett currently owns 12 daily newspapers in New York, including well-known titles such as the Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester and the Times Herald-Record of Middletown.
Gannett shouldn’t be rewarded for destroying newspapers, but the provision does lead to some anomalies. For instance, Alden Global Capital, which, like Gannett, is notorious for driving up profits by hollowing out its newspapers, would presumably be eligible for assistance because it is a privately held hedge fund rather than a public company. On Twitter/X, I asked Steven Waldman, the president of Rebuild Local News, whether Alden would be able to put its hands on some state money. His answer: “Yes. I think so.”
Alden’s MediaNews Group chain owns four dailies in New York, including The Record of Troy, and The Saratogian. Alden also owns New York City’s legendary Daily News, which is listed as being part of MediaNews but which I understand is managed separately.
If I might speculate, it could be that there are several privately held chain owners in New York that are doing good work and that proponents of the credit didn’t want to exclude them. The largest privately held national chain doing business in New York is Hearst, whose Times Union of Albany is a well-regarded paper (but is not part of the Empire State coalition). In any case, even if Alden’s papers get some of the money, it provides an incentive for them to do the right thing.
Some other details of interest, quoting Rebuild Local News:
No newsroom can get more than $320,000.
The subsidy to newsrooms will be based on the number of employees. The benefit will be up to $25,000 per employee (50% of the salary up to a $50,000 wage.)
$13 million for firms with fewer than 100 employees, $13 million for bigger ones, $4 million for new hires.
As I said up top, there have been a number of tax credits proposed to help local news outlets over the past few years. The best known, the Local Journalism Sustainability Act, would have created credits not just for publishers but also for subscribers and advertisers. President Biden included a credit for publishers in his Build Back Better bill, which died at the end of 2021.
The question, as always, is whether government assistance to local news is a good idea. U.S. Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., recently filed legislation to defund NPR in response to former senior editor Uri Berliner’s error-filled lament that the network has fallen in with the progressive left. Tenney, as it happens, is a lead sponsor of the Community News and Small Business Support Act, a bipartisan bill that would create tax credits for local publishers and advertisers.
Mike Blinder raised the issue of government interference with Richner and Waldman, who was also a guest on Blinder’s recent podcast. They responded, essentially, that the New York tax credit was worded in a neutral manner so that news organizations could not be punished for their specific content.
I agree that tax credits are about as neutral and arm’s-length as you can get in insulating journalism from government pressure. But it’s always going to be a challenge. Given that the New York credit expires after three years, you can be sure there will be a debate over whether to renew it as the expiration date approaches. That, in turn, will give politicians an opportunity to redefine eligibility requirements — and there’s always a possibility that some assessment of content might be part of that.
Still, the New York system seems like an experiment worth trying, and I’d like to see it spread to other states.
• Catch and kill. The National Enquirer’s practice of paying for stories and of deep-sixing articles in order to gain power and influence over someone — known as “catch and kill” — didn’t start with former Enquirer owner David Pecker. Nor was Donald Trump the first alleged beneficiary. I recommend “Scandalous,” a 2019 documentary about the Enquirer that is revealing and highly entertaining. Both Bob Hope and Bill Cosby were caught dead to rights in tawdry sexual affairs, and the Enquirer killed stories about those affairs in order to force them to cooperative in cheery feature stories. Pecker’s innovation was to politicize the practice.
• Facebook and news. Back when I was reporting my 2018 book, “The Return of the Moguls,” news organizations desperately sought to use Facebook as a way of distributing their journalism. News publishers liked to talk about “the barbell,” by which they would attract readers on Facebook (one end of the barbell) and try to get them to migrate to their own digital products (the other end of the barbell), where, it was hoped, they would become paying subscribers.
In the years since, Meta executives have decided news just isn’t worth it and have throttled journalism on Facebook and other products, including Threads and Instagram. How bad is it? The Washington Post has conducted a data analysis (free link) showing that “the 25 most-cited news organizations in the United States lost 75 percent of their total user engagement on Facebook” between the first quarter of 2022 and the first quarter of 2024. It’s further evidence that news organizations’ business models shouldn’t be dependent on giant corporations with their own agendas.
• The WSJ will miss Murdoch. Axel Springer, the right-wing German media conglomerate that took over Politico in 2021, has its sights set on The Wall Street Journal, according to Ben Smith of Semafor. Rupert Murdoch, through his control of the Fox News Channel and other outlets on three continents, may be the most malignant media magnate on the planet. But he’s been a surprisingly good steward of the Journal, which after 17 years of his ownership remains one of our great newspapers. At 93, he won’t be in charge too much longer. And here’s a quote from Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner that you might enjoy: “I’m all for climate change. We shouldn’t fight climate change but adjust to it.”
I’ll grant you that’s something you might see on the Journal’s editorial page even now. Murdoch, though, has been better about not letting that bleed into the news pages than Axel Springer might be.