J. Jonah Jameson of “Spider-Man” fame visits the San Diego Comic-Con in 2017. Photo (cc) by William Tung.
When does aggressive but acceptable behavior on the part of editors cross the line into workplace abuse? Back when I was covering the media for The Boston Phoenix, I heard some hair-raising stories emanating from the newsrooms at The Boston Globe and the Boston Herald.
But though the targets of that abuse were shaken up, consequences for perpetrators were few. There was a sense at least among some folks that it went with the territory, and that if you didn’t like it, you should suck it up. I’ll hasten to add that I didn’t accept that line of thinking, and I’m fortunate to have never been yelled at by an editor — at least not one I worked for. (A few editors I’ve reported on let me have it, but that’s OK.)
Photo by Peggy and Marco Lachmann-Anke via Pixabay
Nearly four years ago, Ellen Clegg and I began tracking solutions to the local news crisis with our podcast, “What Works: The Future of Local News.” Our first guest was Lori Ehrlich, at that time a state representative who was working to launch a commission to study the state of community journalism in Massachusetts and make some recommendations.
The commission has twice failed to achieve liftoff, but Ellen and I have built a multidimensional project. We wrote a well-received book, “What Works in Community News,” which was published by Beacon Press in 2024. And we are involved in other ways as well.
Today the What Works project, which is part of Northeastern University’s School of Journalism and affiliated with the university’s Center for Transformative Media, comprises several different initiatives:
Our website, where we post updates to the projects that we write about in our book, new episodes of our podcast, and news and commentary about other developments in local news.
Our podcast, on which we interview enterpreneurs and thought leaders on an every-other-week basis. We’ll be back later this month with our 105th episode following a summer hiatus.
Our Bluesky feed, where we link to coverage and smaller items that don’t quite meet the criteria for a full blog post. If you’re not interested in joining Bluesky, you’ll find our news feed embedded on the website. If you’re reading What Works on your laptop, just cast your eyes to the right.
A database of independent local news organizations in Massachusetts. Although much of our work is national in scope, we also believe we can offer unique value to the grassroots journalism community right here at home. Look for links to “Mass. Indy News” in the upper right corner of this blog and at the What Works website. You can also bookmark it at tinyurl.com/mass-indy-news.
Speaking appearances at which we talk about our book and evangelize about the future of local news. We also engage in ad hoc consulting with the leaders of news projects that are either startups or moving in new directions.
Gatherings for local news leaders both in person and via webinar. We’re already planning our second in-person conference, which will be held next year on Friday, March 13.
Ellen and I are trying to build something of lasting value and to push back against the narrative that local news is dead. Through independent community control and innovative nonprofit and for-profit business models, we believe the local news crisis is being solved one community at a time.
What would Walter Cronkite say? The legendary CBS News anchorman at the 1976 presidential debate between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. Public domain photo.
Is there a media organization that’s fallen harder or faster in the Age of Trump II than CBS News? You might point to The Washington Post, but Jeff Bezos has thus far left its news coverage alone, contenting himself with taking a wrecking ball to the opinion section.
By contrast, CBS’s corporate overlords earlier this year settled a bogus lawsuit brought by Donald Trump against the network’s premier news program, “60 Minutes,” for $16 million in order to grease the skids for a sale to Skydance Media, headed by the Trump-friendly David Ellison.
And now comes the next act in this tragedy. According to a story first broken by Puck and since confirmed by other news outlets, Ellison is on the verge of acquiring The Free Press, a prominent right-leaning opinion outlet founded by Bari Weiss, the celebrity former New York Times opinion editor. The price tag could be somewhere between $100 million and $200 million. The idea is to bring Weiss inside the CBS tent and give her a major leadership role over CBS News.
What a revolting development. I’m not a regular reader of The Free Press, but its reputation is not so much right-wing as it is anti-anti-Trump. As CNN media reporter Brian Stelter wrote in July, when talk of a Weiss-Ellison alliance was starting to bubble up: “Earlier this year New York magazine described The Free Press as a media organ that ‘both wants to excoriate liberals but not fold fully into the MAGA wing.’”
Perhaps The Free Press’ most notorious piece was a takedown of NPR by one of the network’s former top editors, Uri Berliner. As I wrote at the time, Berliner’s screed was shot through with intellectual dishonesty, as he built his argument that NPR had fallen victim to liberal bias on a scaffolding of mischaracterizations and outright falsehoods. Look at its homepage this morning and you’ll see clickbait such as “How Zohran Mamdani Could Kill New York’s Schools,” “Is There a Dumber Housing Policy Than Rent Control?” and “The Democratic Socialists of America Don’t Know If They Should Condemn Murder.”
Media reporter Oliver Darcy on Wednesday wrote an excoriating takedown of the pending deal and the absurd notion that The Free Press is somehow worth $100 million or more, saying in part:
Ellison appears determined to replicate the John Malone playbook at CNN: nudge the newsroom into a posture more deferential to Trump, launder that shift as “balance,” and hope the MAGA crowd will suddenly reward him. But this formula is already tired and simply doesn’t work. Meddling at CNN, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times has only destabilized those institutions. It chases away the core audience, while failing to win over the right-wing demographic, which has no interest in embracing legacy news brands no matter how many concessions are made. These audiences celebrate the destabilization of news institutions, not because they will ever turn to them for information, but because they despise them and want to see them burn to ash.
CBS News was never quite the “Tiffany network” of legend. Edward R. Murrow was gradually sidelined during the years after he publicly called out Red Scare-monger Joseph McCarthy. Dan Rather, still going strong at 93, was eased out as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” and producer Mary Mapes was fired after the short-lived “60 Minutes II” aired a report in 2004 about then-President George W. Bush’s sketchy service in the Air National Guard that was, admittedly, based in part on phony documents.
Never, though, has CBS News fallen as far as it has this year. Giving Bari Weiss some sort of oversight role may represent a new low, but I have a feeling that will soon be eclipsed by some other outrage. Walter Cronkite weeps.
It’s time for the Globe to ease up a bit on the metered paywall. Photo (cc) 2017 by Kali Norby.
Boston Globe Media has named a vice president of product. Jim Bodor “will help define and implement our product vision and strategy, ensuring our products are customer-centric, innovative, and market-leading,” according to an email to the staff forwarded to me by a trusted source. And I could give him an earful. Here are three ideas I hope are on his to-do list:
Clean up the homepage. Overly busy homepages are epidemic among leading newspaper websites, including those of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post — not to mention large regionals like The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Minnesota Star Tribune. Still, the Globe takes it to another level. Simplify, simplify, simplify.
Offer some gift links. The Times and the Post give subscribers 10 links a month that they can share on social media or with friends. The Journal and The Atlantic offer unlimited sharing. Giving non-subscribers some grazing privileges can turn them into paying customers. Why not start with five or six shares a month and see how it goes?
Fix the social connection. Sometimes I’ll be scrolling Bluesky or Facebook and I’ll see a link to a Globe story that I want to read. I’m a paying subscriber. I’m logged in. Yet if I try to come in from an external link, more often than not I’ll hit the Globe’s paywall. The Globe isn’t the only publication that has that issue, but it’s time to repair it once and for all.
What follows is the full text of the memo announcing Bodor’s appointment. Dhiraj is Dhiraj Nayar, the president and chief financial officer of Globe Media. AB is Anthony Bonfiglio, the chief technology officer.
Team,
We are excited to share that Jim Bodor joined us today in the new role of VP of Product at Boston Globe Media. Jim will help define and implement our product vision and strategy, ensuring our products are customer-centric, innovative, and market-leading.
Jim will partner closely with the newsrooms, sales, business, technology, and marketing to achieve key business outcomes focused on furthering our product-led culture of innovation, experimentation, and audience-first thinking.
Jim brings extensive experience as a digital product leader in the media and learning industries. Most recently, he served as vice president of product management at Harvard Business Publishing (HBR), where he led HBR’s first generative AI initiatives, directed the relaunch of the HBR.org mobile app, and championed the company’s first virtual events program, among other things.
Early in his career, Jim held leadership roles at WGBH and The Boston Globe, where he launched subscription products, scaled digital platforms, modernized content strategy, and led redesigns of award-winning programs.
Across all of these roles, Jim has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to balance strategic vision with operational excellence, blending business acumen, customer focus, and product innovation.
Not Dead Yet “is a national, grassroots disability rights group that opposes legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia as deadly forms of discrimination.”
Jeff Jacoby has a sharp column up at The Boston Globe on the dangers of physician-assisted suicide, writing that “a decent society does not enlist physicians to end lives; it strives to relieve suffering while upholding life’s inestimable worth.”
I wrote about the same topic a couple of weeks ago in my supporters newsletter. Like Jeff, I was motivated by a deep investigation published by The Atlantic (gift link). Here’s what I had to say:
***
At some point, the Massachusetts Legislature is expected to take up the matter of physician-assisted suicide, and when that time comes, I intend to pull together something more coherent than today’s newsletter.
Suffice it to say that I am extremely skeptical, and I don’t like efforts to relabel it as “medical aid in dying,” a euphemism piled on top of a euphemism in an attempt to play down the reality. As an auxiliary member of the disability community, I’m deeply concerned that physician-assisted suicide could be a way of encouraging people to kill themselves as a way of saving money for the health-care system. As the disability-rights organization Not Dead Yet puts it, “assisted suicide and euthanasia” should be regarded as “deadly forms of discrimination.”
What prompts today’s essay is an article in The Atlantic by Elaina Plott Calabro on Canada’s experience with physician-assisted suicide. If you are interested in this issue at all, then I urge you to read it in full. Calabro is rigorously fair, even going along with Canada’s absurd acronym for medical aid in dying, MAID, as though a kindly woman was going to enter your room and blissfully whisk you off to another dimension.
But what comes through is that a system that began with allowing terminally ill people in their final days of life to opt out of the pain and suffering they were experiencing has devolved into something entirely different, with people choosing to die because they are depressed, because they’re burdened with high medical bills, or just because the Canadian law places patient autonomy ahead of all other values. Calabro writes:
Nine years after the legalization of assisted death, Canada’s leaders seem to regard MAID from a strange, almost anthropological remove: as if the future of euthanasia is no more within their control than the laws of physics; as if continued expansion is not a reality the government is choosing so much as conceding. This is the story of an ideology in motion, of what happens when a nation enshrines a right before reckoning with the totality of its logic. If autonomy in death is sacrosanct, is there anyone who shouldn’t be helped to die?
Physician-assisted suicide rears its head in Massachusetts every so often. The Boston Globe has editorialized in favor of it, and in 2024 was embarrassed when it was revealed that staff member Kevin Cullen had actually signed papers to hasten the death of a woman whose journey he was chronicling. If we begin moving toward legalization here, I’ll have more to say. At the very least, we need stringent protections to make sure that this extraordinary remedy is reserved for extraordinary circumstances. Then again, the Canadian example shows that once physician-assisted suicide is normalized, then protections that had been put in place quickly fade away.
Walt Disney World. 2023 public domain photo by Tech. Sgt. Andrew Burdette.
The most profoundly depressing piece of journalism I engaged with last week wasn’t about war, public health or the rise of authoritarianism. It was about Disney World — or, rather, what Disney World says about how our culture has split in two, one for the shrinking middle class, the other for the rich.
Daniel Currell and photographer Paola Chapdelaine put together an opinion piece for The New York Times (gift link) that told the story of Scarlett Cressel, a 60-year-old disabled school-bus driver from Virginia who saved for years so that she and her family could visit the resort.
What they encountered was a two-tier system that Disney and other corporations have been embracing for many years, and that has been accelerating since the COVID pandemic began to ease. You have to pay massive fees to avoid standing in line for top attractions. You have to stay at an expensive Disney hotel or other Disney-owned accommodations even to get access to the best deals.
Cressel and her family couldn’t afford any of that. Essentially Disney has morphed into a playground for the wealthy, with the masses left to press their faces up against the window to see what’s going on inside. Currell writes:
For most of the park’s history, Disney was priced to welcome people across the income spectrum, embracing the motto “Everyone is a V.I.P.” In doing so, it created a shared American culture by providing the same experience to every guest. The family that pulled up in a new Cadillac stood in the same lines, ate the same food and rode the same rides as the family that arrived in a used Chevy. Back then, America’s large and thriving middle class was the focus of most companies’ efforts and firmly in the driver’s seat.
That middle class has so eroded in size and in purchasing power — and the wealth of our top earners has so exploded — that America’s most important market today is its affluent. As more companies tailor their offerings to the top, the experiences we once shared are increasingly differentiated by how much we have.
Cressel is a perpetually optimistic sort. By the end of the piece, she pronounces herself pleased with her trip, despite the restrictions and indignities she encountered, and is already planning her next visit.
What really drove home the inequities that Disney now encourages, though, was the very different experience of Shawn Conahan, an affluent tech executive from California who took his 13-year-old daughter to Disney World, paying hundreds of extra dollars to skip lines and get into attractions that ordinary people might not have even been able to access.
I found myself feeling surprisingly emotional, not resenting the easy access that Conahan and his daughter enjoyed (“the best day ever,” she said) but, rather, resenting how the Disney experience has deteriorated from what it used to be. I’ll close with a couple of personal anecdotes.
When our two kids were younger, we were able to visit Disney World three times. We couldn’t afford it, but my in-laws belonged to a Disney vacation club, and we were able to stay for free at a time-share that was not only lovely but that gave us access to some of the perks that Conahan and his daughter were able to enjoy and that Cressel couldn’t. This was in the late 1990s and early ’00s, so the disparity wasn’t as great as it is today. Still, our kids were incredibly lucky to be able to enjoy that kind of access.
Then, two years ago, my now-adult daughter and I visited Graceland. She’d always been a huge Elvis Presley fan, and she’d saved for several years in order to be able to pay her way. For the Graceland tour, I encouraged her to pay for premium access, figuring this would be her one and only trip. I’m glad we did. Among other things, we were able to get into a special museum where Elvis’ sequined jackets and boots were kept. She was smitten, and it didn’t seem unfair to pay more in order to get more.
While we were walking the grounds, though, several other tourists saw us and joined our group. Our guide sternly told them to leave because we had paid extra for our tour and they were part of the unwashed masses. I was embarrassed and appalled.
But this is where we are at in 2025. Increasingly, folks in the shrinking middle class are being shut out of experiences that we once took for granted as part of our common culture. It’s no wonder that we’ve become so angry and resentful. You might even say that it’s one of the ingredients that has helped fuel the rise of authoritarianism.
For some years now, many newspaper analysts, including me, have predicted that most daily newspapers would eventually cut back to one weekend print edition and go all-digital the rest of the week. Print advertising still has some value, and steering all of it into a big Saturday/Sunday paper would seem to be a smart way of maximizing a shrinking revenue stream.
Yet I don’t think any paper has taken that step. Some have cut back to two or three days a week. But large papers whose executives are rethinking print have tended to go whole hog.
Last year Advance Local shut its print papers in New Jersey, including The Star-Ledger of Newark, and steered subscribers toward its statewide digital news outlet, NJ.com. Now The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is taking the same step, even though Katie Robertson reports in The New York Times (gift link) that the AJC’s print edition is still profitable, and even though digital subscriptions have run well behind what management was hoping for.
The AJC, owned by Cox Enterprises, will shutter its print edition at the end of this year, although it will continue to offer an e-paper laid out like print as part of its digital offerings. Cox is in the midst of a $150 million effort to boost the AJC. Andrew Morse, the paper’s president and publisher, told Robertson: “The fact is, printing newspapers and putting them in trucks and driving them around and delivering them on people’s front stoops has not been the most effective way to distribute the news in a very long time.”
The fact-checker rates Morse’s statement as: true. The question, though, is what effect that’s going to have on the paper’s bottom line. Morse is hoping for 500,000 paid digital subscribers by the end of 2026, but the company told Robertson that it’s only reached 115,000 paid subscribers, of whom just 75,000 are digital-only.
“The AJC’s digital audience far surpasses that of print and has for some time,” writes AJC reporter J. Scott Trubey. “Ending print, however, will be the biggest change of Morse’s tenure and one that will likely be controversial, particularly among some of the AJC’s longest-tenured subscribers.”
A photo editor for The Boston Globe was killed last Saturday when he was struck by a car while bicycling in rural Illinois. Lloyd Young, 57, had traveled to Illinois to visit family, according to the Globe. The driver, a 54-year-old woman, was not identified.
According to 25News, a local television station, Young had worked for the Bloomington Pentagraph before coming to the Globe, where he had worked since 2006. In an email to the staff earlier this week from editor Nancy Barnes and other top editors, they said in part:
Lloyd has been a part of the Globe family since 2006, joining from the Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers in Stuart, FL. He graduated from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1990 and received his Master’s degree from the VisCom program at Ohio University, focusing on picture editing & newsroom management.
Lloyd led our photographic news coverage, day in and day out. He was an exceptional colleague to other photo editors, photographers and designers, working closely with the copy desk daily, selecting the most significant images locally and from around the world.
We will dearly miss him at the Globe. Please keep Lloyd’s family in your heart and prayers.
In 2013, Young talked about his work in a video interview produced by the Globe. You can watch it by clicking above.
The Boston Globe has published an editorial favoring passage of a shield law that would protect journalists from being ordered to identify their anonymous sources or turn over confidential reporting materials. The editorial is a strong statement in favor of press freedom, but it would have benefited from some context.
The Globe says that Massachusetts is one of just 10 states that lacks a shield law, which is accurate but not entirely true. In fact, 49 states, including Massachusetts, have some sort of shield protection either in the form of a state law or a ruling by state courts. The sole exceptions are Wyoming and, notoriously, the federal government.
Massachusetts is among those states that rely on court rulings rather than an actual law, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press lumps the state in with seven others that provide the lowest level of protection, a list that also comprises Idaho, Utah, Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, Mississippi and New Hampshire.
According to the Reporters Committee, Massachusetts lacks not only a shield law but also a ruling by its highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, that would recognize some sort of journalists’ privilege. “Nevertheless,” the organization says, “Massachusetts courts have been willing to use a common law balancing test based on general First Amendment principles to protect reporters’ confidential sources in some circumstances.”
The way such balancing tests work is that one of the parties in a criminal or civil matter — in criminal court, usually the prosecution — demands that a journalist turn over information that they believe is crucial to proving their case. A judge then determines whether the information is important enough to require that the journalist produce it and if there is any other non-journalistic source for the same information.
As the Globe editorial notes, the most recent time that happened here was last December, when Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone ordered Boston magazine reporter Gretchen Voss to turn over notes she had taken during an off-the-record interview with murder suspect Karen Read. Cannone reversed herself the following month, and Read was acquitted of the most serious charges in her case in June. (As the Globe editorial observes, Boston magazine is now owned by Boston Globe Media, but Voss was defended by the previous ownership.)
The legislation supported by the Globe would protect reporters who find themselves in a situation similar to that of Voss. Two identical bills that are pending in the state Legislature, one filed by Rep. Richard Haggerty, D-Woburn (H.1738), and another filed by Sen. Rebecca Rausch, D-Needham (S.1253), say in part:
In any matter arising under state law, a government entity may not compel a covered journalist to disclose protected information, unless a court of competent jurisdiction determines by a preponderance of the evidence, after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to the covered journalist, that the disclosure of the protected information is necessary to prevent, or to identify any perpetrator of, an act of terrorism against the United States, the commonwealth or its subdivisions; or the disclosure of the protected information is reasonably likely to prevent a threat of imminent violence, bodily harm, or death.
Terrorism, imminent violence or death are clearly much more stringent requirements than simply needing confidential information to prove a court case. Unfortunately, the chances of such legislation being enacted must be seen within the context of the Legislature’s inability to accomplish much of anything, let alone something as controversial as this. As the Globe observes, “the Massachusetts Legislature has for at least 15 years running declined to allow even a floor vote on the measure.”
One final bit of trivia: Rep. Haggerty is a member of the family that has owned The Daily Times Chronicle of Woburn since its founding in 1901, and where I was on staff for much of the 1980s.
Jennifer Peter, the longtime number-two editor at The Boston Globe, is leaving to become editor-in-chief of The Marshall Project, a highly regarded nonprofit news organization that covers criminal justice. Peter will start her new job on Sept. 29.
The Pulitzer Prize-winning outlet was founded 10 years ago with former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller as its top editor. Peter succeeds Susan Chira, who stepped down in December 2024. At The Marshall Project, Peter will be in charge of a staff of more than 60 journalists.
“I’m beyond thrilled to be joining such a high-caliber news organization with such a critical mission, particularly at this time in our history,” Peter was quoted as saying. “The Marshall Project was launched to meet the urgency of this moment, when so much of the criminal justice system is being reshaped.”
Added CEO Katrice Hardy: “Jennifer is the kind of leader and editor who has spent her career helping produce groundbreaking investigations and journalism, sometimes under the most trying circumstances.”
Peter has a background in newspapers and at The Associated Press, joining the Globe in 2004. She’s worked in a variety of editing jobs and oversaw the Globe’s Pulitzer-winning coverage of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. She was named managing editor in 2017.
In an email to the Globe staff that a source forwarded to me, Globe editor Nancy Barnes called Peter’s departure “bittersweet news” and said “she models a leadership quality that I admire: the ability to be kind, compassionate and yet unbending in her commitment to truth and ethics.” The full text of Barnes’ email follows:
Dear all,
This is bittersweet news that I am about to share with you, so brace yourselves.
After nearly 21 remarkable years at The Boston Globe, Jen Peter is leaving to become the editor-in-chief of The Marshall Project, a non-profit news organization focused on criminal justice reporting.
I know this is tough news for so many of you, who have worked with Jen for a long time. As I was joining the Globe, Brian McGrory told me she was beloved, devoted to the newsroom, and incredibly hard-working. I have found all of this to be true. I would add that she models a leadership quality that I admire: the ability to be kind, compassionate and yet unbending in her commitment to truth and ethics. During my tenure, she has overseen our daily news report through a torrential cycle of news, taken leadership of several departments, and guided important projects, including last year’s examination of the handling of the state’s emergency shelter system. In addition, she has served as chief of staff, and helped with budget issues. She seems irreplaceable.
And yet… This is an exciting opportunity for Jen, to lead her own news organization at a time when so much is happening in the criminal justice space. I’m looking forward to seeing where she takes that organization next. Her last day in this newsroom will be Wednesday, Sept. 17. However, the good news is that she won’t be going far as this job will be mostly remote and she and her family will remain in Boston.
Jen started her journey at the Globe in 2004 as a co-editor of Globe North, moving on to become state politics editor and then city editor under then Metro Editor Brian McGrory. She succeeded him in that role during another turbulent news cycle: the Boston Marathon bombing, the capture and trial of Whitey Bulger, the conviction and suicide of Aaron Hernandez, the drug lab scandal, and several hotly contested mayoral, gubernatorial and US Senate elections.
She also oversaw several major projects, including 68 Blocks, a year-long immersion in the Bowdoin-Geneva neighborhood; Getting In, which involved assigning eight reporters to follow families trying to get their children into the Boston Public Schools; Bus 19, which told the story of inequality in Boston through the regulars on a bus that traversed the city; and the Power of Will, Billy Baker’s story of one family’s relentless (and successful) pursuit of a cure for their child’s brain cancer. As managing editor, she conceived of the Valedictorian Project, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, and helped guide the newsroom through the COVID years.
Many of you will want to know what’s next for the newsroom as Jen moves on to new challenges. We are going to put that question aside for a few weeks so that we can properly thank Jen, celebrate her innumerable contributions, and send her off in style.
Please join me in congratulating her — and let’s also remind her every day why she is going to miss this newsroom.
