Author: Dan Kennedy

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?

Become a supporter of Media Nation for just $5 a month. Supporters receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive content.

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

New Hampshire Statehouse in Concord. Photo (cc) 2011 by Teemu008.

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.

Become a supporter of Media Nation for just $5 a month.

Poynter pushes back against gloom and doom; plus, transitions in Colorado and Maine

Photo (cc) 2016 by Quinn Dombrowski

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

Russian President Vladimir Putin. 2022 photo via President of Russia.

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 Library of Alexandria via Wikimedia Commons

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:

The Boston Globe will unveil a new morning newsletter on Monday

I just signed up for Starting Point, The Boston Globe’s new morning newsletter, scheduled to debut on Monday. It sounds like it’s being positioned as a more serious alternative to The B-Side, a breezy take on the day’s events aimed at younger readers that’s part of the Globe’s free Boston.com website.

Here’s the email that I got a little while ago:

Dear Globe reader,

We’re Boston Globe journalists Diamond Naga Siu and Jazmin Aguilera, and on Sep. 9 we’re launching a morning newsletter called Starting Point.

How is it different from every other morning newsletter out there?

First, it’s focused on New England, with a selection of the most consequential stories from our region. But we’ll also survey the national and international scene, picking out the most important and interesting stories. The reporters in our Washington Bureau will provide insights into the presidential election and critical races around the US. We’ll chat with Globe journalists about the stories behind their stories. There will be special guest writers from time to time.

And because we all love a good read and honest recommendations, we’ll share our favorite books and articles, restaurants and cafes, great places to visit, and interesting things to do throughout New England.

Our goal is to inform, intrigue, and delight you. Give Starting Point a try — it’s free — and let us know what you think.

Update: As alert reader Greg Reibman notes, the sign-up pages says that Starting Point will only come out on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Not much of a daily newsletter, but maybe they’re rolling it out slowly.

A.G. Sulzberger on how Donald Trump threatens freedom of the press

Donald Trump’s anti-free press, anti-First Amendment agenda follows a playbook (free link) designed in Hungary, India and Brazil, writes New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger in — uh, The Washington Post. Key excerpt:

As they seek a return to the White House, former president Donald Trump and his allies have declared their intention to increase their attacks on a press he has long derided as “the enemy of the people.” Trump pledged last year: “The LameStream Media will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things, and events.” A senior Trump aide, Kash Patel, made the threat even more explicit: “We’re going to come after you, whether it’s criminally or civilly.” There is already evidence that Trump and his team mean what they say. By the end of his first term, Trump’s anti-press rhetoric — which contributed to a surge in anti-press sentiment in this country and around the world — had quietly shifted into anti-press action.

Why paywalls for nonprofit news, though rare, are not going away anytime soon

The Salt Lake Temple in Salt Lake City, part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The city is served by The Salt Lake Tribune, the first nonprofit legacy newspaper in the U.S. Photo (cc) 2006 by Ken Lund.

Should nonprofit news organizations place their journalism behind a paywall?

There is considerable precedent that suggests they should not. Public television and radio are free, though they depend on grant money and donations from, you know, viewers (and listeners) like you. There’s also an educational mission and significant tax advantages that come with nonprofit status, and you could argue that they should make their journalism free in return for those benefits.

The Institute for Nonprofit News, for instance, begins its mission statement this way:

Nonprofit news is created for, supported by, and committed to the communities it serves. Through reporters who have deep community ties and topical expertise, nonprofit news elevates untold stories, exposes wrongdoing, and provides the facts we need to make informed decisions. And because most of this content is available without paywalls or subscription fees, nonprofit news makes essential information available to everyone — not just those who can afford it.

That falls short of an explicit statement of disapproval when it comes to nonprofits and paywalls, but it comes kind of close.

Yet Ellen Clegg and I found in our reporting for “What Works in Community News” that a few nonprofit news outlets do charge for their journalism, though most do not. Among those with paywalls are two digital-only sites: the Daily Memphian, which is part of our book, and The Baltimore Banner.

Both of these employ large staffs and aim to serve as complete replacements for the shrunken legacy papers they compete against. Such projects are expensive, and their leaders can hardly be faulted for concluding they need to charge for their journalism just as most for-profits do. Both find ways to make their journalism affordable for folks who may not be as well-heeled as their regular subscribers.

Another nonprofit with a paywall is The Salt Lake Tribune, the first legacy daily newspaper to embrace that model. Writing at Nieman Lab, Sarah Scire reports that the Tribune would like to end its dependence on a paywall at some point and is even now making much of its journalism free. She quotes from the Tribune’s annual report:

We’ve raised $340,000 and counting to fully remove the paywall on all of our election coverage ahead of the critical 2024 races. We’re not there yet from an income point of view to make our website free, but we hope to grow our donor base and income to the point that we’ll be able to open everything up to everyone.

Yet she also observes that even though the Tribune is growing, it remains dependent on paid subscriptions. Last year, for instance, subscribers were responsible for $5 million of the Tribune’s $15 million in revenues. Much of the rest comes from donors and advertising.

The bottom line is that even nonprofit news outlets need to bring in enough money to fulfill their mission. In the end, readers don’t really care whether their local news is owned by a nonprofit for a for-profit; Scire reports that only about a third of residents even know that the paper is nonprofit. What they want is a news source that’s comprehensive and reliable.

The looming competition between Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy is also a test for free versus paid

Brian Stelter. Photo (cc) 2017 by Ståle Grut / NRKbeta.

This is going to be interesting. Last month, CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy announced he was leaving in order to start his own subscription-based newsletter called “Status.” CNN said it would replace Darcy as the lead writer on its “Reliable Sources” newsletter, but it wasn’t clear who that person would be or when it might happen.

On Tuesday, it was announced that Brian Stelter — Darcy’s predecessor at CNN — would be returning as the network’s chief media analyst, and that he’ll be back at the helm of the “Reliable Sources” newsletter next Monday. His old television show, also called “Reliable Sources,” will not be back, but Stelter said he expects to pop up on a number of CNN programs to talk about media topics.

Oliver Darcy

This is very good news for people who care about the media, as Stelter and Darcy are both outstanding. But let’s cut to the chase, shall we? Darcy is charging $14.95 a month — triple what solo newsletter writers normally charge, but no doubt what he calculated he needs to make ends meet. Stelter’s newsletter presumably will be free, although that caveat is important given that CNN chief executive Mark Thompson is reportedly developing some paid products.

Here’s what Stelter had to say about the looming competition:

All the while I remained an avid reader of “Reliable Sources,” and especially admired Oliver Darcy’s fearless reportage, as well as his decision to launch Status last month. I’m rooting for Oliver and, as I have told him personally, I think we’re going to complement each other wonderfully.

And here’s Darcy’s take:

It goes without saying, but I am very much looking forward to Stelter’s second act at CNN. As I’ve said before, he has been a first-class mentor to me. Now, I look forward to him being a first-class competitor!

Darcy’s challenge is that though Stelter’s newsletter may be the most similar to what he does, there are also a number of other media newsletters, and most of them are free. Indeed, the author of one of them, Tom Jones of the Poynter Institute, devoted the top of his morning round-up today to Stelter’s return.

As you may recall, Stelter was one of a handful of high-profile people who were fired by Chris Licht during Licht’s brief stint as CNN’s top executive. Stelter had emerged as an important voice in speaking out against then-President Donald Trump’s war on journalists, who he called “enemies of the people,” and the new owners of CNN apparently believed Stelter was too hot for them.

The ownership hasn’t changed, but fears that CNN was going to turn into Fox Lite proved unfounded, and Stelter — who’s been busy as a freelancer — has popped up frequently on CNN’s air in recent months. Darcy, meanwhile, established a reputation for independence right from the start and wrote a number of newsletter items that must have made Licht extremely unhappy before Licht himself was finally shown the door.

I hope there’s room in the burgeoning media newsletter universe for both Darcy and Stelter. But, as I said, I have to wonder how paid can compete with free if they are both mining essentially the same ore. Best wishes to both of them.

Speaking of free versus paid, Media Nation is a free source of news and commentary — but you can become a paid supporter, and receive a weekly supporters-only newsletter, for $5 a month. Just click here.

Gannett to lay off 74 employees in Mass. as it prepares to shut down its consumer site

Gannett and USA Today headquarters in McLean, Va. Photo (cc) 2008 by Patrickneil.

Gannett is laying off 74 employees in Massachusetts — but, for once, they are not people who were producing local journalism. The layoffs, which take effect Nov. 14, are related to the company’s decision to close Cambridge-based Reviewed, a website that combines consumer advice and commerce in a manner similar to Wirecutter, which is part of The New York Times.

The pending closure and layoffs were reported Aug. 26 by Mia Sato at The Verge and came amid accusations that Reviewed published articles produced by artificial intelligence and attributed to non-existent writers. Sato wrote: “As The Verge reported last fall, the marketing firm behind the Reviewed content is the same company that was responsible for a similar dust-up at Sports Illustrated, in which remarkably similar product reviews were published and attributed to freelancers.”

Gannett denied the allegations and said the decision to shut down Reviewed was based on changes in Google’s algorithms.

Aidan Ryan of The Boston Globe quotes NewsGuild of New York president Susan DeCarava in a statement:

We are deeply troubled by Gannett’s decision to shutter Reviewed. We are concerned for the future of dozens of workers represented by The NewsGuild of New York working at Reviewed, and about the broader impact of this announcement on the media industry at large.

The layoffs were announced in advance, reports Ray Schultz of Publishers Daily, because of a Massachusetts law mandating that companies provide 60 days’ notice ahead of a mass layoff.

Earlier: