Rachel White speaking at the 2025 International Journalism Festival in Perugia, Italy. Photo (cc) 2025 by Ascanio Pepe.
On the latest “What Works” podcast, Ellen and Dan talk with Rachel White, CEO of the Associated Press Fund for Journalism. Rachel joined the nonprofit AP Fund for Journalism in 2024, after a 10-year run with The Guardian, the one-time print newspaper in the U.K. that has become a global digital powerhouse.
In 2016, White became president of theguardian.org, a nonprofit organization she helped create that raises tax-deductible funds to support The Guardian’s journalism. The AP Foundation has a similar mission but is laser-focused on state and local news outlets all over the U.S. The AP Fund is expanding. Fifty news organizations have just joined, for a total of 100 newsrooms. The foundation aims to increase that number to 150 by the end of 2026. News outlets get help with reach and strategy to achieve financial stability.
Note: We asked White about financial pressures facing the AP following decisions in 2024 by the Gannett and McClatchy newspaper chains to drop their membership in order to save money. And earlier this week, after this podcast was recorded, the AP announced that it would seek buyouts as it pivots away from newspaper journalism to visual journalism, new revenue sources and AI.
Dan has a Quick Take on Local News Day, which is this Thursday, April 9, and billed as “a national day of action connecting communities with trusted local news.”
Ellen’s Quick Take is on an opinion column apocalypse in Fargo, North Dakota. The Fargo Forum, a locally owned news outlet, has forced out three long-running columnists. Why? Take a wild guess. Here’s one headline on a recent column by journalist Jim Shaw: “Our local leaders oppose free and fair elections.” He’s now an ex-columnist.
And a big hat-tip to Alex Ip, a Gen Z publisher and editor at thexylom.com, which explores how communities are influenced and shaped by science. Alex broke the news about Fargo on social media.
A summary of our conversation
We used Otter, an AI-powered tool, to produce a transcript of our conversation, then fed it into Claude and asked it to write a 600-word summary, which was then read by us for accuracy. The results are below. Do you find this useful? Please tell us what you think by using the Contact form linked from the top of our website.
1. How two-tier Disney is helping to fuel the rise of middle-class anger and resentment (Sept. 2). Taking your family to a Disney resort has always been an expensive proposition — but at least you had the sense that everyone was in it together. Not anymore. As The New York Times reported, Disney in recent years has embraced a two-tier system that shuts out middle-class and working-class families. 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. Our once-common culture has split in two, one for the shrinking middle class, the other for the rich.
2. The Associated Press tells its book critics that it’s ending weekly reviews (Aug. 8). It’s always humbling when I republish a memo and attract more traffic than my own deathless prose is able to generate. Anyway, a Media Nation correspondent passed along a depressing note from Anthony McCartney, the AP’s global entertainment and lifestyle editor, that began:
I am writing to share that the AP is ending its weekly book reviews, beginning Sept. 1. This was a difficult decision but one made after a thorough review of AP’s story offerings and what is being most read on our website and mobile apps as well as what customers are using. Unfortunately, the audience for book reviews is relatively low and we can no longer sustain the time it takes to plan, coordinate, write and edit reviews. AP will continue covering books as stories, but at the moment those will handled exclusively by staffers.
3. Renée Graham quits Globe editorial board over Charlie Kirk editorial but will remain as a columnist (Sept. 18). The shocking public murder of right-wing provocateur Charlie Kirk prompted some disingenuous commentary from observers who should have known better — including The Boston Globe’s editorial board, which ran a piece whose headline initially read “We need more Charlie Kirks.” The editorial intoned that “his weapon of choice was always words,” making no reference to his doxxing of left-wing academics, leading to harassment and death threats. That prompted Renée Graham to quit the editorial board in protest. Fortunately for those of us who value her voice, she has continued writing her column and her newsletter.
Terrible news from The Associated Press. Media Nation correspondent J.A. passes along this note from Anthony McCartney, the AP’s global entertainment and lifestyle editor.
AP to end its weekly book reviews
Dear AP book reviewers,
I am writing to share that the AP is ending its weekly book reviews, beginning Sept. 1. This was a difficult decision but one made after a thorough review of AP’s story offerings and what is being most read on our website and mobile apps as well as what customers are using. Unfortunately, the audience for book reviews is relatively low and we can no longer sustain the time it takes to plan, coordinate, write and edit reviews. AP will continue covering books as stories, but at the moment those will handled exclusively by staffers.
I want to thank you for your time and commitment to reviewing books for the AP. All current review assignments through Aug. 31 will be honored and your invoices will be paid. (Please submit those as you normally would, and file final invoices by Sept. 15.)
I want to take a moment to thank Carolyn, who has coordinated reviews and made sure relevant titles were covered, and Mark, who has edited the reviews and incorporated best practices for trying to get reviews to appear in search results and get as many readers as possible.
Thank you again for your diligence and work on reviews. I wish you all the best.
Trump meets the press. 2019 photo by the Trump White House.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington has ruled that, at least for now, the White House can exclude The Associated Press from coverage of presidential events in most venues. The 2-1 ruling puts on hold a decision by a lower court in favor of the AP.
The decision is 55 pages long, and I’ve simply scanned it for a few highlights. But it appears that the court’s main argument is grounded in the number of media organizations that would like to gain access to President Trump’s events. It’s not so much that the White House is kicking out the AP as it is that they’re letting someone else in instead. Here’s how Judge Neomi Rao puts it in her majority decision:
The White House is likely to succeed on the merits because these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion. The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted. Moreover, without a stay, the government will suffer irreparable harm because the injunction impinges on the President’s independence and control over his private workspaces.
In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Cornelia Pillard writes:
In granting a stay, my colleagues assert a novel and unsupported exception to the First Amendment’s prohibition of viewpoint-based restrictions of private speech — one that not even the government itself advanced….
Make no mistake as to why it matters that the panel majority accepts these theories. In the short term, the court allows the White House to rely on viewpoint to exclude the AP from the Press Pool pending a final decision on the merits, a process that typically takes months. And, looking further ahead, if any merits panel were to accept those theories, the result would be a Press Pool — and perhaps an entire press corps — limited during Republican administrations to the likes of Fox News and limited to outlets such as MSNBC when a Democrat is elected.
As you may recall, the Trump regime banned the AP from many of its events after the wire service refused to go along with President Trump’s absurd insistence that the Gulf of Mexico be referred to as the “Gulf of America.” Map services from Apple, Microsoft and Google quickly toed the line, as did several news organizations; the AP, though, held firm.
But as Zach Montague and Minho Kim report for The New York Times, Trump changed the facts on the ground, possibly making it easier for the the president to prevail in a lawsuit brought by the AP. Most notably, the regime ended the practice of allowing the White House Correspondents’ Association to determine which news outlets would be included in the press pool.
The White House now has the discretion to decide for itself. And though announcing that the AP was being banned might not withstand constitutional scrutiny, saying that the pool will include NewsMax, Breitbart and Catturd, and “oh, sorry, there are no more slots” is an assertion that might hold up. It’s a complicated decision, since the majority ruled that the AP must be allowed into press briefings where there is some give-and-take with the president but may be excluded from merely observational events, such as those that take place in the Oval Office.
Needless to say, this is fairly disastrous for democracy since it allows Trump to decide who will cover him. Excluding the AP is particularly outrageous since so many news outlets are dependent on the wire service for coverage of national and international affairs; indeed, the service provides news to about 15,000 media organizations around the world. It is for that reason that the AP had always been included in the press pool.
The AP’s own story on the stay, by media reporter David Bauder, calls Friday’s stay “an incremental loss.” But as Judge Pillard notes, it could take months for the full Court of Appeals to render a decision, and then there’s the prospect of the case winding up before the Supreme Court. If nothing else, the Court of Appeals’ endorsement of viewpoint discrimination should not be allowed to stand. It would be yet another lurch down the road to authoritarianism if the high court ultimately decides that Trump has found a way to censor the AP without violating the First Amendment.
More: As I’ve mentioned before, we now have access at Northeastern to Claude, a leading AI chatbot from Anthropic. Though I have deeply mixed feelings about AI, I also think it’s worth experimenting with. I asked Claude to produce a 1,200-word summary of the decision, and you can read it here. I can tell you that reading Claude’s handiwork did lead me to go back and add a tweak to this post.
By ruling in favor of The Associated Press in its lawsuit to overturn a ban imposed by the Trump White House, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden applied the First Amendment in a straightforward, entirely predictable manner. The Trump administration may appeal, but it would be shocking and deeply disturbing if McFadden’s decision isn’t upheld.
First, McFadden ruled that though the White House can exercise broad discretion in terms of which news organizations are allowed access to the Oval Office, Mar-a-Lago and other venues, it must do so in a neutral manner. The White House, by explicitly stating that the AP was being banned for continuing to refer to the Gulf of Mexico by its proper name rather than the “Gulf of America,” was engaging in unconstitutional “viewpoint discrimination,” McFadden wrote. He continued:
The analysis is straightforward. The AP made an editorial decision to continue using “Gulf of Mexico” in its Stylebook. The Government responded publicly with displeasure and explicitly announced it was curtailing the AP’s access to the Oval Office, press pool events, and East Room activities. If there is a benign explanation for the Government’s decision, it has not been presented here.
The judge also rejected the Trump administration’s claim that the AP was seeking special privileges. First Amendment precedent holds that a news organization has no right to demand, say, an interview with a public official, or to be called on at a news conference. The White House claimed that’s what the AP was seeking.
The Mississippi judge who ordered a newspaper to remove an editorial from its website has reversed herself. But this is hardly a victory for freedom of the press.
Judge Crystal Wise Martin rescinded her temporary restraining order after the owner of The Clarksdale Press Register and the board of commissioners in that city agreed to settle a dispute that had resulted in a libel suit being filed. The commissioners agreed to drop the suit while Wyatt Emmerich, president of Emmerich Newspapers, said the paper will publish a less incendiary version of the editorial, according to Michael Levenson of The New York Times (gift link).
That does not change the reality that Judge Martin leaped in to help city officials by censoring the newspaper, even though the First Amendment protects libelous materials from being subjected to prior restraint. Libel can, of course, be punished after the fact through a civil suit, although government agencies cannot sue for libel.
The editorial, headlined “Secrecy, Deception Erode Public Trust,” took city officials to task “for not sending the newspaper notice about a meeting the City Council held regarding a proposed tax on alcohol, marijuana and tobacco.”
The Associated Press has been in the news a lot lately, both because of its feud with the White House over Donald Trump’s insistence that it refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” and for some cuts it’s had to implement (see Gintautus Dumcius’ story in CommonWealth Beacon and Aidan Ryan’s in The Boston Globe).
But here’s some good news: The AP announced on Thursday that it’s creating a Local Investigative Reporting Program to support efforts at the community level. According to an annoucement by executive editor Julie Pace, the initiative will be headed by veteran AP editor Ron Nixon, who “will work with state and local outlets to cultivate stories and support their investigative reporting needs.”
The program will encompass training, resources and access to AP services, and will build on the agency’s Local News Success Team “to localize national stories for member audiences and provide services and support to newsrooms across the U.S.”
Judge Crystal Wise Martin is sworn in by her mother, retired Judge Patricia Wise, in 2019. Photo via the Mississippi Office of the Courts.
In 1971, after a federal court stopped The New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers, the government’s secret history of the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court was so alarmed at that naked act of censorship that it took up the case in a matter of weeks. On a 6-3 vote, the court ruled that the Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe and others could resume publishing, though they might face prosecution for revealing classified information. (They didn’t.)
In 1979, after a small magazine in Wisconsin called The Progressive said it intended to publish an article revealing some details about how to manufacture an atomic bomb, a federal judge stepped in and said no — but so agonized over his censorious act that he all but begged the magazine and the government to reach a compromise.
Then there’s Judge Crystal Wise Martin of Mississippi. On Wednesday, Martin issued a temporary restraining order requiring The Clarksdale Press Register to take down an editorial from its website. According to Andrew DeMillo of The Associated Press, the editorial, headlined “Secrecy, Deception Erode Public Trust,” took city officials to task “for not sending the newspaper notice about a meeting the City Council held regarding a proposed tax on alcohol, marijuana and tobacco.”
The city had sued the Press Register, claiming that the editorial was libelous and that it “chilled and hindered” the council’s work. Mayor Chuck Espy was quoted in the AP story as saying the editorial had unfairly implied that officials had violated the law. He cited a section of the editorial that asked, “Have commissioners or the mayor gotten kick-back [see update below] from the community?”
The Huffington Post’s “What Time Is the Super Bowl?” headline has been called “the most legendary act of SEO trolling ever.” 2016 photo via the Voice of America.
Recently a source in The Boston Globe newsroom forwarded to me a memo sent to the staff about the paper’s performance in Google search during 2024. “We get 25%-27% of our traffic from Google; it’s a significant way we reach people who don’t come to the Globe on their own,” wrote Ronke Idowu Reeves, the paper’s SEO editor. (SEO stands for search-engine optimization.)
As you might imagine, the big SEO winners in 2024 were the Karen Read trial, the phrase “who won the debate” (perhaps a reference to both presidential debates), the Celtics victory parade and Steward Health Care.
The memo, though, prompted another thought: What is the purpose of SEO in the age of paywalls? As you probably know, the Globe has an especially strict paywall, with no quota of gift links for the month. I emailed Reeves and asked her whether SEO was successful in getting casual visitors to sign up for a digital subscription given that they couldn’t read even the one story they’d searched for. She forwarded my email to spokeswoman Carla Kath, who told me by email: “Yes, a good number of people do read and subscribe to our stories that they encounter on search. But, because the scope of search is constantly changing, we are always adjusting how we approach it.”
It’s something I’d like to dig into more deeply at some point since it’s fundamental to the economics of digital news. Twenty years ago, paywalls were rare, and the idea behind SEO was to drive massive audiences to your stories so that they’d see the ads that accompanied them. The first iteration of The Huffington Post stressed SEO heavily, and its infamous 2011 headline “What Time Is the Super Bowl?” has been called “the most legendary act of SEO trolling ever.”
The power to rename things and to demand that others recognize that power is something that is right out of the authoritarian’s playbook. So if you think Donald Trump’s insistence that we refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America isn’t a big deal, think again. By getting us to go along, he makes us complicit.
Earlier today I wrote that Google Maps is now using the Gulf of America name despite 400 years of custom and a complete lack of international support. Now comes more ominous news: The Associated Press, which issued style guidance that keeps it as the Gulf of Mexico, says the Trump administration denied AP journalists access to a White House event. Here is what AP executive editor Julie Pace said:
Today we were informed by the White House that if AP did not align its editorial standards with President Donald Trump’s executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, AP would be barred from accessing an event in the Oval Office. This afternoon AP’s reporter was blocked from attending an executive order signing.
It is alarming that the Trump administration would punish AP for its independent journalism. Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP’s speech not only severely impedes the public’s access to independent news, it plainly violates the First Amendment.
The AP Stylebook is the industry standard, used not just by the agency’s own journalists but by many other news organizations besides. I hope the AP stands firm.
And shame on Google. Throughout the day, I saw anti-Trump folks on social media announce they would switch to Apple Maps or Microsoft’s Bing Maps. It’s futile. They’re standing fast for now, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see one or both of them give in a few days from now.
