As social-media sharing continues to deteriorate, I am posting more links here for the benefit of Media Nation regulars. Here are three must-reads for your Friday morning:
“Behind CNN Turmoil, a Series of Shattered Friendships” (free link), by James B. Stewart and Benjamin Mullin, The New York Times, Nov. 15. An in-depth look at the mess created following Warner Bros. Discovery’s acquisition of the network, which led to the firing of two successive chief executives of CNN, Jeff Zucker and Chris Licht, at the hands of the new boss, David Zaslav.
“A former sideline reporter stunningly admitted that she made things up,” by Tom Jones, Poynter Online, Nov. 17. Jones writes: “In what was a jaw-dropping admission, Amazon Prime Video and Fox Sports anchor Charissa Thompson said on a podcast this week that when she was a TV sideline reporter on football games, she sometimes fabricated a report for the broadcast.” Will Thompson keep her job. Should she? (No.)
On the latest “What Works” podcast, Ellen and I talk with Priyanjana Bengani, a fellow in computational journalism at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University. Her work focuses on using computational techniques to research issues in digital media.
Her most recent project, published in the Columbia Journalism Review, focused on uncovering networks of “pink slime” local news outlets. There have been several iterations of pink slime sites over the years, such as the North Boston News. Bengani has studied partisan political sites disguised as genuine community news organizations. (There’s no such place as “North Boston,” by the way.) They get their name from the pinkish beef paste that is added to hamburger meat.
In Quick Takes, I revisit Press Forward, the $500 million philanthropic effort aimed at revitalizing local news. When Press Forward was announced a few months ago, many observers were worried that a national, top-down effort might clash with local needs and local concerns. Fortunately, Press Forward is now getting involved in the grassroots in an attempt to leverage its funding and help a wide range of local and regional news projects.
Ellen delves into a piece in Racket, an alternative news site in Minneapolis. (The What Works podcast with editor and co-owner Em Cassel can be found here.) Racket takes a steely-eyed look at Steve Grove, the new CEO and publisher of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Just before taking the journalism job, Grove settled a lawsuit alleging he withheld public records from the press when he was a state government official.
NJ PBS in Newark, New Jersey, the headquarters of NJ Spotlight News. Photo (cc) 2022 by Dan Kennedy.
It’s NewsMatch time — that annual holiday tradition when local and regional news nonprofits ramp up their fundraising efforts so that donations can be matched by the Institute for Nonprofit News.
This morning I received an email with the intriguing subject line “This was our favorite story of 2023!” from NJ Spotlight News, one of the projects that Ellen Clegg and I are profiling in our forthcoming book, “What Works in Local News.” The top of the email reads:
Dear Dan,
Last week we kicked off our year-end campaign, and we couldn’t be more excited to share how your support made a big impact in 2023, plus give a glimpse into the exciting plans we have for 2024.
As a reader of NJ Spotlight News, you know you can depend on our nonprofit journalism day in and day out. But do you know what goes into producing just one story, from start to finish? Take, for example, our story last week on youth voting, which investigated college age voters in New Jersey and their attitudes towards politics. Here’s a look, by the numbers, of what went into it:
phone calls made: 6
internal meetings at NJ Spotlight News to plan/discuss: 3
days it took to produce: 10
people involved in its production: 7
cups of coffee consumed: 8
emails sent about it: 31
hours of transcription logged: 2 hours
We put everything we’ve got into all of our stories because we value in-depth, comprehensive reporting. These New Jersey stories need to be told and we believe sourcing our information from a variety of voices and perspectives is the best way to do so. And because of our hard work, we’re making a real difference in our New Jersey community.
The email did not link to the story, but here it is. Reported by Hannah Gross, Spotlight’s education and child welfare reporter, the story takes a deep dive into whether college students would vote in the following week’s state and local elections — a tough sell for younger voters given that there’s no presidential race on the ballot.
“People don’t realize how much change actually comes from the local standpoint,” Rowan University student Jamie Ivan told Gross. “Everyone thinks: ‘Oh, it’s not presidential, it doesn’t matter.’ Presidential elections matter a lot, but so do local ones. It affects your everyday life. It directly impacts you.”
Acting on a hunch, I checked to see if Gross is affiliated with Report for America, a project that places young journalists at local news organizations across the country. Indeed she is. Report for America is also featured in “What Works in Community News” — we interviewed RFA corps members at news projects such as The Colorado Sun and the New Haven Independent, and we also include a featured conversation with RFA co-founder Steven Waldman, edited down from our podcast interview with him.
NJ Spotlight News began life about a decade ago as a website covering statewide public policy and politics. Several years ago it merged with NJ PBS, and today comprises the original website plus a daily half-hour newscast, with a lot of cross-pollination between both sides of the enterprise. It’s an example of how public broadcasters can step up and help solve the local and regional news crisis — one of a number of business models that Ellen and I explored in our reporting on how to build a sustainable future for community journalism.
Heather Cox Richardson interviews President Biden in 2022. Photo by the White House.
Earlier this week I finished the audio version of Heather Cox Richardson’s new book, “Democracy Awakening: Notes on the State of America.” Like her Substack newsletter, “Letters from an American,” “Democracy Awakening” is well-written, civil, and dedicated to engendering some optimism during the dark time we’re living through. Bonus: Richardson narrates the book herself.
Richardson is more optimistic than I am about the future of the country, but, as she reminds us over and over again, we’ve been here before — in the 1850s, when the slaveholding minority captured all the levers of government power (let’s hope we can avoid a civil war this time); in the 1930s, when Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal were threatened by a homegrown fascist movement; and at several points in between.
Reviewing an audio book is always difficult since it’s not really possible to take notes, but this review in The Guardian by Charles Kaiser will give you a taste:
Richardson’s latest book shares all the intelligence of her newsletter. It doesn’t have the news value of her internet contributions but it is an excellent primer for anyone who needs the important facts of the last 150 years of American history — and how they got us to the sorry place we inhabit today.
“Democracy Awakening,” thankfully, is no marathon. At a brisk eight and a half hours, you can listen to it on a few long walks or drives. If you’re a fan of “Letters from an American,” the most popular newsletter on Substack, then no doubt you’ll be inspired by “Democracy Awakening” as well.
A new study argues that Google and Facebook should be paying U.S. news publishers between $11.9 billion and $13.9 billion a year for the use of their journalism. Of that total, Facebook owes $1.9 billion and Google between $10 billion and $12 billion. That’s a lot of money. By way of comparison, the recently announced Press Forward philanthropic initiative seeks to raise $500 million to support nonprofit local news over the next five years.
An overview of the study, conducted by researchers at the University of Houston, Columbia University and the Brattle Group, an international consulting firm, was published Monday in The Conversation. “Digital platforms benefit from having varied, credible and timely news content provided by publishers,” write two of the four reseachers, Anya Schiffrin and Haaris Mateen. “This enhances user engagement and makes their platform more attractive to advertisers. News publishers benefit by finding an avenue through which they can distribute their content, thereby reaching more readers.”
The study itself, which is based on “game theoretical insights into cooperative bargaining in cases where value is jointly created,” argues that the platforms and news publishers should split the revenue generated by that mutually beneficial relationship on a 50-50 basis rather than allowing the platforms to keep virtually all of it, as is now the case. “We document that Google and Facebook are making payments to publishers around the world that are vastly below our estimates of a ‘fair payment,’” they write.
The study looks at an Australian law passed several years ago that mandated such revenue sharing. The authors also note that the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, whose principal sponsor is U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., would establish similar payments by forcing the giant platforms to negotiate with publishers for a share of their revenue.
Ben Smith, writing in Semafor, observes that attempts to extract money from the platforms came about because efforts to support news with digital advertising hit a dead end. “The drive to force digital platforms to pay news publishers came after a decade in which publishers chased online ad revenue generated by traffic from social and search platforms — only to find that clicks simply couldn’t underwrite the cost of quality journalism,” according to Smith, who adds: “The new study will be a cudgel for regulators looking to squeeze Meta and (especially) Google.”
The question is whether anything is likely to happen and, more important, if the push for platform revenues is coming too late. The platforms don’t look quite as powerful today as they did a few years ago. Google is currently on trial in a massive antitrust case over its ubiquitous search engine. Moreover, after Canada passed a revenue-sharing law, Facebook simply withdrew all news content, and Google has threatened to do the same.
I’ve long argued that lawsuits filed by news publishers over Google’s ad tech are a more promising route to getting some money out of the platforms. About 200 newspapers are suing Google, claiming that the platform’s control of all aspects of the digital advertising market has driven ad prices through the floor to Google’s benefit. The publishers are also suing Facebook, claiming that Google and Facebook colluded illegally. Separately, Gannett is suing Google, but not Facebook.
The new study takes an interesting look at the extent of the damage that Google and Facebook have caused the news business, but I don’t see how that translates into actual revenues for news — especially with Facebook and Google signaling that they’re willing to walk away from news altogether rather than pay.
The ad-tech cases, on the other hand, are grounded in well-established law banning monopolistic practices that cause harm. Google and Facebook have made it impossible for anyone to extract more than a pittance from digital advertising. That’s fine with the platforms because of their massive scale — but it doesn’t work for news outlets, especially small, local enterprises, because they need more than pennies to pay for quality journalism in their communities.
Does Fox News lead or follow its audience? I’ve long thought it was both.
During the 2015-’16 presidential campaign, Fox tried to take out Donald Trump, as when then-Fox host Megyn Kelly confronted Trump with his misogynistic remarks at the first Republican debate. It didn’t work, and eventually Fox got with the program. Then, after Joe Biden defeated Trump in 2020, Fox tried to play it straight, more or less. Famously, it was the first media outlet to call Arizona for Biden, a state that ensured his victory. But when Fox’s audience started stampeding to farther-right cable channels like Newsmax and OAN, Fox reversed itself and embraced Trump’s lies so tightly that it cost them $787 million in a libel settlement.
Brian Stelter makes that argument in an interview with Tom Jones of Poynter. Stelter, who’s written a new book about Fox called “Network of Lies,” tells Jones that most Fox employees don’t much care about politics. Instead, they are motivated by the usual: making a living. Here’s an excerpt:
For most, it’s just a job, not a calling. Some producer and director types truly believe in the Trump agenda and will stop at nothing to see him reelected. But most are just trying to make good TV. They definitely aren’t losing sleep about Fox’s coarsening of the culture or Trump’s brainwashing of the base.
I write in the book that rank-and-file staffers like to gossip about hookups between hosts and ratings rivalries between shows. On the occasions when I steered my source chats in a more serious direction, toward the impact of Fox-fueled disinformation on society and democracy, staffers turned cagey or dismissive. I heard some predictable whataboutism and rants about the flaws of other networks.
Bottom line: I think introspection and accountability are in short supply at Fox, a tone that’s set at the top, by Rupert, who advised Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott years ago to “ignore the noise.”
You should read the whole thing. And by the way, although Stelter probably isn’t interested, I wonder if it might be possible for new CNN head Mark Thompson to lure Stelter back now that the brief, unlamented Chris Licht era is over. Stelter appeared on CNN last week to plug his book, so who knows? I wouldn’t expect to see Stelter return to his old job, which is being ably filled by Oliver Darcy. But Stelter is among the very best media reporters in the business, and it would be great to see him return in some capacity.
CommonWealth Beacon has just published a story by its editor, Bruce Mohl, shedding some light on an exceedingly strange episode from earlier this year: The Boston Globe’s decision to fire veteran investigative reporter Andrea Estes after the paper published a story reporting that three top MBTA managers were living far from Greater Boston when in fact they made their homes in the local area. The story, on which Estes had the lead byline, reported that nine T officials had such an arrangement; in fact, it was six. The Globe had to run several corrections as a result.
Mohl reports that the errors in the story came about because the managers themselves were not allowed as a matter of policy to speak with the press without permission, and that they thought the MBTA public relations office was going to respond on their behalf — but the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) ordered the T to stay silent. Mohl writes:
At the MBTA, workers are advised not to talk to reporters, leaving that job to public relations officials. But in this instance the MBTA public relations officials, on orders from higher-ups at the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, ignored calls from Estes seeking to verify the information she had gathered. The result was a story that unfairly tarred at least three employees at the MBTA and caused the firing of Estes.
Disclosure: I’m a member of CommonWealth’s board of advisers.
This entire saga has been weird, and though Mohl’s story answers some of the outstanding questions, it doesn’t answer all of them. Why would MassDOT not allow the T to defend its own employees? Why was Estes fired if she wasn’t entirely at fault? In addition, editor Nancy Barnes said there would be some public accountability after Estes left the Globe, but Mohl suggests that may have been derailed by a pending arbitration hearing sought by Estes.
A further indication that at least some of Estes’ peers believe she was wronged came when she was hired recently as a staff reporter by the Plymouth Independent, a fledgling nonprofit edited by Mark Pothier, until recently a high-ranking editor at the Globe, and advised by Globe legend Walter Robinson. “Having her on staff sends a strong message about the kind of serious journalism we plan to do,” Pothier said in a press release announcing her hiring.
Thanks to Mohl’s digging, we now know more than we did. I still hope the full story comes out at some point.
Thomas Friedman has been indispensable in the aftermath of Hamas’ terrorist attack on Israel and the war that is now under way in Gaza. Here’s a free link to his latest, which is very dark indeed.
He calls Benjamin Netanyahu “the worst leader in its [Israel’s] history — maybe in all of Jewish history,” someone who is incapable or unwilling to make any of the diplomatic concessions needed to bring about even the slightest glimmer of a more hopeful future. Friedman also argues that, unlike in previous conflicts, Israel really does face an existential threat, with Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic militias in Iraq, Houthis in Yemen, Iran and even Vladimir Putin’s Russia “threatening Israel with a 360-degree war all at once.”
“It is crystal clear to me, Friedman writes, “that Israel is in real danger — more danger than at any other time since its War of Independence in 1948.”
Two Boston Globe journalists have signed an open letter that criticizes the Western media for their coverage of the war between Israel and Hamas. According to The Washington Post (free link), more than 750 journalists from dozens of media outlets have signed the letter, which begins:
Israel’s devastating bombing campaign and media blockade in Gaza threatens newsgathering in an unprecedented fashion. We are running out of time.
More than 10,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s four-week siege. Included in the mounting death toll are at least 35 journalists, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, in what the group calls the deadliest conflict for journalists since it began tracking deaths in 1992. Scores more have been injured, detained, gone missing or seen their family members killed.
As reporters, editors, photographers, producers, and other workers in newsrooms around the world, we are appalled at the slaughter of our colleagues and their families by the Israeli military and government.
We are writing to urge an end to violence against journalists in Gaza and to call on Western newsroom leaders to be clear-eyed in coverage of Israel’s repeated atrocities against Palestinians.
The Globe journalists who signed the letter are Peter Bailey-Wells, a multi-platform editor on the Express Desk, and Sahar Fatima, a digital editor for metro coverage. Another signer, Abdallah Fayyad, recently left the Globe’s opinion section to take a position at Vox. “My hope for this letter is to push back on the culture of fear around this issue, and to make decision-makers and reporters and editors think twice about the language that they use,” Fayyad told the Post.
Although the letter makes reference to Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel, in which more than 1,400 people were killed and 200 were taken hostage, the emphasis is on the way that Israel has conducted its campaign against Hamas in Gaza. As the Post notes, “Most strikingly, the letter argues that journalists should use words like ‘apartheid,’ ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘genocide’ to describe Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.”
The letter may also raise issues at news organizations that ban their journalists from taking sides on controversial matters, although this may prove to be less of an issue than it might have at one time. Several years ago news organizations like NPR and the Globe loosened some of their restrictions on political activities, especially those that advocated racial justice.
Frankly, if I worked at the Globe I would not have signed the open letter because I don’t think it sufficiently acknowledges the suffering of Israelis or their right to self-defense. But it doesn’t strike me that Bailey-Wells’ or Fatima’s journalistic fairness will be compromised because they chose to sign.
.jpg){kind=link}