Click here or on image to watch “Beat the Press” on Contrarian Boston.
“60 Minutes” made its fall debut on Sunday, and so did “Beat the Press with Emily Rooney.” We watched to see what clues we could discern over how executive producer Nick Bilton and CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss would remake the venerable newsmagazine program, which first slipped into view 58 years ago.
I don’t want to speak for my fellow panelists, but I thought it was solid if unspectacular. The first segment, on the secretive rescue of an American pilot from Iran, couldn’t have happened without the active cooperation of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. But since when have the networks not engaged in access journalism? The story, hosted by Norah O’Donnell, was harrowing, even if my friend Danny Schechter would have derided it as “militainment” if he were still with us.
I’m passing along this email I received from PR and corporate communications at USA Today Co. in response to my post about the newspaper chain’s deal with AI surveillance company Palantir, which has drawn protests from union employees.
Hi Dan –
I saw your piece published yesterday regarding USA TODAY Co.’s relationship with Palantir and wanted to reach out. Was there a reason you chose not to contact us for comment before publication?
In particular, I noticed the line: “From perusing the coverage, I’m not entirely sure exactly what Palantir will be doing for USAT.” Given that uncertainty, I was surprised that no effort was made to seek clarification from the company directly.
This initiative supports our broader strategy to strengthen audience relationships and create greater value across our business. In this work with Palantir, we’re leveraging AI to create a unified intelligence layer to serve our expansive audience better, deepen engagement, and drive growth across subscriptions, advertising, and e-commerce.
Our editorial decisions remain independent and are guided by our longstanding journalistic standards and ethics policies.
Please note, USA TODAY Co. complies with applicable data protection and privacy laws and maintains strong standards for data security and governance. We require this of our vendors and partners as well, reflecting our belief that safeguarding protected personal information is essential to our business and the audiences we serve.
Sharing a quote below addressing the open letter from the Guild/unionized employees which you can attribute to Amy Garrard, Vice President of Labor Relations, USA TODAY Co.:
“We respect that employees have a range of perspectives. Our agreement with Palantir is a business decision focused on strengthening how we connect and better serve audiences, advertisers, and subscribers. Our data remains protected under our existing privacy commitments, contractual safeguards, and applicable laws. As always, our journalism remains fully independent.”
Firefighters at Ground Zero on Sept. 19, 2001. Photo (cc) by Loco Steve.
Twenty-five years ago today, I stayed up most of the night writing a long essay for The Boston Phoenix called “The End of Decadence,” a first reaction to the terrorist attacks that had just taken place. I recalled what that was like for GBH News on the 20th anniversary. Below is my original Phoenix piece, brought to you by the Northeastern University Library, which now holds the copyright.
Sadly, what stands out in rereading this is that the media did not fulfill our hopes that they would hold the powerful to account. It was Chris Matthews, of all people, who was the most prescient in the moment, telling his viewers, “The problem with retaliation is that you play into your enemy’s hands. You radicalize your enemies. Retaliation is part of the terrorism.” Within a year, news organizations were cheering on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as they built their recklessly flawed case for going to war in Iraq, a foreign-policy disaster we are living with to this day.
The end of decadence
Can the media — and the rest of us — adjust to a frightening new world?
By Dan Kennedy | The Boston Phoenix | Sept. 13, 2001
It’s over. The easiest, sleaziest, richest, most meaningless decade we’ve yet known has come to an end, buried beneath the rubble and ashes and dust of the World Trade Center.
Officially, the 1990s died at 8:45 a.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, when American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the north tower — thereby setting off a day of horror unlike anything we have seen before. In truth, though, the patient had been sick for some time.
BU’s College of Communication. Photo (cc) 2012 by mikebtrinh.
Boston Globe editor Brian McGrory will not be returning to Boston University. McGrory, who took a two-year leave of absence as chair of BU’s journalism department in December 2025, told the Globe’s staff earlier this morning that he has resigned from academia.
McGrory was the Globe’s editor from 2012 to 2023 and was replaced by Nancy Barnes, a veteran news executive who’d worked in high-level jobs at NPR, the Houston Chronicle and other stops. Barnes left abruptly in late 2025, paving the way for McGrory’s return. Although McGrory’s second stint as editor was initially described as temporary, it soon became apparent that he was back for an extended stay.
Here’s the text of his note to the newsroom, forwarded to me by people I trust.
Hey all,
In the spirit of transparency, I’m sharing with you that I resigned this week from the faculty of Boston University, which obviously ends my leave of absence there. BU administrators had kindly granted me a two-year leave, with one very reasonable requirement. They asked that I let them know this September whether I planned to return in January, 2028.
I truly valued my time at BU, so much that I don’t want to commit to a return date that I may not be able to keep. I also don’t want to continue our work at the Globe with an immovable deadline hanging over my head. After discussions with Dhiraj [Nayar, president of Boston Globe Media], Linda [Henry, Globe Media’s CEO], and Mariette DiChristina, the dean at BU, this seemed to be the right thing to do.
It feels to me, and I hope to many of you, that we are making tremendous progress, consistently, sometimes relentlessly, putting out truly interesting and important journalism. I couldn’t be more delighted to be a part of it all.
None of this should signal that I’m looking to overstay my welcome. In terms of how long I’ll be in this role, I’m aiming for the day before you start wondering why I’m still here.
I’m happy to answer any questions that you have. Just drop by.
Labor Day is behind us, summer is starting to wane and it’s time to start thinking about what media news will keep us up at night this fall. From the standpoint of my research interests and my personal passions, the ongoing crisis in local journalism looms as the most important storyline.
In terms of immediate threats and what it means for our democracy, though, I would identify the possibility (if not the likelihood) that Paramount will absorb CNN into its empire as the story we need to keep the closest eye on.
This is not a defense of using AI to write. Rather, it’s a critique of the slipshod standards that have long pervaded the op-ed pages of our major newspapers. As University of Maine media historian Michael Socolow has written, the op-ed page, unveiled by The New York Times more than half a century ago, was originally conceived as a way of giving a voice to various members of the community.
That function survives, but the voice, in all too many cases, belongs not to the ostensible author — in many cases an elected official, a business executive or a nonprofit leader — but, rather, to a ghostwriter who’s either a staff member or an outside consultant. Yes, the actual writer talks with the person whose byline will deceptively grace the piece, and yes, that person will also have final approval. But many op-eds are no more the work of the bylined “author” than a major political speech is the original rhetoric of the person delivering it.
Seth Moulton, left, and Ed Markey at Thursday’s Senate debate, sponsored by WCVB-TV, The Boston Globe and WBUR. Photo via YouTube.
As I wrote on Wednesday, The Boston Globe’s endorsement of U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton over incumbent Ed Markey in the Democratic Senate primary was a bit of a surprise, although it fits within a tradition of counterintuitive endorsements dating back through several different ownership groups.
Now, though, longtime Democratic political figure George Bachrach is claiming that Globe owners John and Linda Henry may have been motivated by an undisclosed conflict of interest: Since September 2023, Seth Moulton’s wife, Elizabeth Moulton, has been the chief talent and people officer at Elevate, a sports and entertainment consulting firm. In April 2024, Elevate acquired Fenway Sports Management’s Consulting Group. John Henry is the principal owner of FSM as well as the Boston Red Sox.
U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton. Photo (cc) 2019 by Marc Nozell.
Endorsements matter in lower-profile races because voters might genuinely be looking for guidance.
Follow-up: A longtime politico alleges the Globe had a conflict in its Seth Moulton endorsement.
For instance, The Boston Globe’s endorsement of Lori Trahan and Jake Auchincloss might have been key factors in their first congressional victories, given that there was no incumbent and there were multiple candidates running. On the other hand, The New York Times’ double endorsement of Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries stands out as an exercise in futility.
Please support this free source of news and commentary by joining my Patreon for just $6 a month. Supporters receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive content.
In two weeks we’ll know which category the Globe’s endorsement of U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton (sub. req., but this is free) in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate fits into. The incumbent, Ed Markey, remains popular despite his advanced age: he leads Moulton by a 28-point margin, according to the latest WCVB-TV/UMass Amherst poll, and the Globe/Suffolk University poll (sub. req.) has Markey up by 14. Moreover, endorsements matter less in high-profile contests — president, governor, senator — than they do when voters are less familiar with the candidates.
Boston Globe editor Brian McGrory is making some big changes in the newsroom, according to a memo to the staff that a trusted source forwarded to me a little while ago.
Though insiders will be particularly interested in the names, what strikes me is that McGrory says he’s looking for big improvements to the website, observing that it’s “our most widely read platform.” For those who think the Globe is still too print-centric, well, he agrees: “This is not to suggest that print isn’t important. It is, but there are exactly no prospects for increasing our print readership.”
The website, he writes, needs to be “less dense and more thoughtfully packaged, with a clearly defined hierarchy” — something I’m sure every reader would agree with.
I started teaching full-time in 2005. Back then, large piles of The Boston Globe were distributed across Northeastern’s campus. Because students were able to pick up a free Globe on the way to class, I could ask them to bring the paper and be familiar with the main stories of the day.
Please support this free source of news and commentary by joining my Patreon for just $6 a month. Supporters receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive content.
Those stacks disappeared years ago. Northeastern worked out a deal for discounted digital subscriptions for students, and I and most of my colleagues in our journalism school required them. But free distribution didn’t return until earlier this year, when Northeastern renegotiated its arrangement with the Globe. Now Northeastern picks up the cost of a digital subscription, and it is free to students, faculty and staff. I actually canceled the paid subscription we’d had since the mid-’80s (digital-only in recent years) and made the switch.
