Tag: Semafor

David Folkenflik stands up for ethics; plus, journalism flunks the stress test, and media notes

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Photo (cc) 2024 by Gage Skidmore.

One of my Sunday night rituals is to read the Semafor media newsletter overseen by Ben Smith — something I also used to do when he was writing his media column for The New York Times.

Smith is a talented guy, and we’ve exchanged a few friendly messages over the years. So I was taken aback at his claim this past Sunday that New York magazine writer Olivia Nuzzi’s sexual affair with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. while she was covering the presidential campaign was no big deal. Here’s part of what he said:

[N]ow that we are in the full fury of American media prurience and self-righteousness, I am going to risk my neck on a slightly contrarian view.

Reporters have all sorts of compromising relationships with sources. The most compromising of all, and the most common, is a reporter’s fealty to someone who gives them information. That’s the real coin of this realm. Sex barely rates.

You won’t hear many American journalists reckon with this. (Some British journalists, naturally, have been texting us to ask what the fuss is about. If you’re not sleeping with someone in a position of power, how are you even a journalist?) The advice writer Heather Havrilesky texted me Saturday that “the world would be much more exciting with more Nuzzis around, but alas the world is inhabited by anonymously emailing moralists instead!”

I realize that Smith isn’t the only observer who’s said this is much ado about very little. But the fact remains, as I noted earlier this week, that Nuzzi wrote an unusually harsh feature about President Biden’s cognitive abilities at a time when Kennedy was one of his rivals as well as a squishy profile of Donald Trump when Kennedy was trying to suck up to him.

Become a supporter of Media Nation for just $5 a month and you’ll receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive content.

So I was glad to see NPR media reporter David Folkenflik speak up for ethical journalism. In an interview with Marisa Kabas of The Handbasket, Folkenflik said what needed to be said about Nuzzi and, while he was at it, about Smith as well:

Ben’s a very smart guy, a serial news entrepreneur, and an interesting and fun thinker about journalism. And I’ve got a lot of regard for him. But this is pretty bananas as a claim. I think that if people are having an intimate relationship, whatever form that may take, with somebody who they’re writing about or whose world they’re writing about, but they fail to disclose — the supposed British sensibility of, “oh, well, we’re all in bed with each other” — is bonkers and bullshit. And it’s not how journalism should be conducted in the States, and it’s not actually how journalism should be conducted in the U.K. either. And I’ve spent a fair amount of time in my career looking at that very question as well.

Now, I should add that Smith later tweeted that he was joking, at least in part. But he’s far from the only journalist to come to Nuzzi’s defense, as Stephanie Kaloi and Ross A. Lincoln report for The Wrap. I don’t care what went on between Nuzzi and Kennedy; that’s between them and their significant others. But whatever that relationship may have been, it compromised Nuzzi’s independence and thus her journalism. Good for Folkenflik for reminding us of that foundational fact.

Failing the stress test

Angelu Fu of Poynter Online reported this week on a survey by Muck Rack showing that “more than half of journalists in the U.S. considered quitting their job this year due to exhaustion or burnout.” She writes:

The report, which was released Tuesday, examines the state of work-life balance in journalism. Muck Rack surveyed 402 journalists in August and found that 40% have previously quit a job due to burnout. That statistic, along with the finding that 56% of journalists have thought about quitting this year, was “staggering,” said the report’s author, Matt Albasi.

“It means we have to have half as many journalists in the wings waiting to move in next year,” said Albasi, a data journalist at Muck Rack. “And we’re going to lose all this institutional knowledge if these people actually do leave.”

This is a massive problem in journalism. To some extent, the “always on” nature of the news business has always led to an undue amount of stress. But as jobs are lost and the pressure to produce keeps getting ratcheted up, the situation is only growing worse.

To compound matters, only 24% of survey respondents said they have access to mental health services.

Media notes

• My former Northeastern j-school colleague Dina Kraft has a fascinating story in The Christian Science Monitor about cooperation between Jewish and Palestinian Israelis. They’re part of a movement called Standing Together, which Dina writes “is attracting record numbers of new members with its simple and direct calls for peace and its belief that Israeli-Palestinian partnership, starting within Israel, is not just aspirational, but essential.”

• ARLnow, a network of digital news outlets in the Arlington, Virginia, area, has done something unusual — it’s acquired a print newspaper known as the GazetteLeader and is converting it to a digital-only operation. Scott Brodbeck, the founder and CEO of ARLnow publisher Local News Now, said he’s adding staff as well. (Disclosure: I’m quoted.)

• Joshua Benton of Nieman Lab has a chilling look at what could happen to journalism if Trump is elected and Project 2025, the blueprint put together by his supporters, is put into effect. Benton has read the report, and he writes that punitive action could range from removing reporters from the White House, to cutting all funds for public broadcasting, to getting rid of Section 230, the federal law that holds web publishers harmless for third-party content.

• New England Public Media, which serves Western Massachusetts, has announced a partnership with The Latino Newsletter to train three high school journalists. The students will provide multimedia coverage of the election as part of the Latino Election Project.

• A distressing note from the Boston television scene: NBC Boston has laid off five people who work for the operation’s special-projects team, according to Boston Globe reporter Dana Gerber.

Semafor provides some clarity on The Washington Post’s massive failure

We now have some clarity as to why The Washington Post sat on information it had in January 2021 that an upside-down American flag, adopted as a symbol by supporters of the failed coup that had just taken place, was flying outside one of Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito’s homes.

Ben Smith and Max Tani report in Semafor that then-senior managing editor Cameron Barr and reporter Robert Barnes didn’t think it was worth a story in and of itself, and that they discussed reporting a deeper story about a dispute between Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann Alito, and her neighbors. That story never came together.

“In retrospect, I should have pushed harder for that story,” Barr told Semafor. You think?

As I speculated on Sunday, Barr said that executive editor Marty Baron, then in his final weeks on the job, did not know about the flag. What remains unclear is what prompted the Post at long last to reveal what it knew (free link) three and a half years later. Did Barnes, who’s now retired, or Carr tip someone off? Or has the story remained part of the institutional memory of the newsroom, and that someone finally decided to surface it following reporting by The New York Times about the Alitos’ pair of insurrectionist flags?

Smith tries to run interference for the Post, but even though the story may not have seemed like as much of a big deal then as it does now, taking a pass on it until now was nevertheless a deeply wrong decision by the Post. It makes you wonder what else they know that we don’t.

Leave a comment | Read comments

A smackdown over programmatic ads and why reader revenue is crucial

We are having a smackdown over an unlikely topic — programmatic ads, those low-quality ads fed to websites by a third party, nearly always Google.

At one time they were fairly lucrative and supported news organizations like The Huffington Post. But their value diminished over time. Indeed, it seemed anachronistic when The Messenger launched last year with a pretty substantial newsroom, offering free access in the hopes that it would attract a mass audience and thrive on programmatic. Its quick demise was as predictable as it was depressing.

Anyway, last week Josh Marshall, the founder and editor of the political news site Talking Points Memo, wrote a post explaining what had happened to programmatic ads over the years. He included a chart (above) showing that revenue from such ads had collapsed at TPM, from nearly $1.7 million in 2016 to just $75,000 in 2023. “As I think is pretty clear, if this is your business, you’re dead,” he wrote. “You don’t have a business.” He added that TPM had successfully pivoted to reader revenue, which was how his project had survived the programmatic meltdown.

Enter Ben Smith, the co-founder of Semafor. Smith called Marshall’s numbers “a dramatic oversimplification,” arguing that the reason TPM’s programmatic ad revenues had fallen so much was that Marshall had put much of his content behind a paywall — and even charged a higher rate for an ad-free experience, meaning that of course ad revenues were going to drop significantly. “The drop in ad revenue is a feature, not a bug, of that strategy,” Smith wrote. “Meanwhile programmatic ad rates, for instance, have actually increased — modestly — over the period that Marshall’s chart covers.”

Smith also quoted Foster Kamer, the editor-in-chief of Futurism, as calling Marshall’s post “sensationalist bs.”

Well, now! I’ve been waiting to write until Marshall responded, and on Tuesday he did. Essentially his counter-argument is that his programmatic revenues didn’t drop because of TPM’s paywall; rather, he implemented a paywall because programming revenues were dropping. He writes:

[W]e didn’t just decide this was money we didn’t need anymore. The changes we made that played a direct role in the decline were entirely in reaction to reductions in potential revenue which we knew we couldn’t sustain. While we were making those changes we still fought for every dollar we could get out of the rapidly diminishing programmatic advertising pie. The results are what you see in that chart, which not surprisingly got a lot of people’s attention.

Now, there’s no way of knowing exactly how much programmatic revenue TPM would be earning if Marshall had left the site wide open and had tried to get as much money as possible from such ads. But he guesstimated that it might be about a third of what TPM was getting in 2016 — in other words, maybe around $570,000, a significant decline from $1.7 million. “Needless to say,” Marshall adds, “no company can withstand a 2/3rds drop in a primary revenue stream.”

Noting that Kamer and Futurism really are making a go of it with programmatic, Marshall points out that certain categories such as tech and science are still able to generate decent revenues from Google ads. “There are no industry sectors for cultural polarization and societal decay, where we operate,” Marshall writes. “They also don’t face the negative premium that news publishers — in the sense of news about daily events and politics — face in a polarized age.”

My own take on all this is that Marshall’s initial post was only a little bit deceptive, and only for readers who weren’t paying attention. He laid out his paywall strategy quite clearly. It’s obvious that if your response to the cratering of programmatic is to start charging for your journalism, then your programmatic revenue is going to drop even more quickly than it otherwise would.

This is relevant, too, to local news. There’s a reason that some 2,900 newspapers have closed since 2005, and that reason is the ad revenues publishers were hoping for to support what were initially free websites never materialized. For-profit local news has become extraordinarily difficult. A few large regional newspapers, like The Boston Globe and the Star Tribune of Minneapolis, have achieved profitability through digital subscriptions, but that strategy has proven to be a pretty much a non-starter at smaller outlets. That’s why we’re seeing a major shift to nonprofit for local news.

As Marshall puts it, “who are we trying to kid here? Does anyone think that advertising — direct or programmatic — still sustains digital news organizations, especially independent ones? Really? I think the almost weekly lists of bankrupt and shuttered news outlets tells the story pretty clearly.”

Leave a comment | Read comments

No, James Bennet was not a victim of the woke mob

Black Lives Matter rally in Washington, June 2020. Photo (cc) 2020 by Geoff Livingston.

The ossification of James Bennet’s departure from The New York Times into a simple morality tale of wokeness run amok is now complete.

In an interview with Ben Smith for the debut of Smith’s new project, Semafor, Bennet is overflowing with self-pity over the way his tenure as the Times’ editorial page editor came to an end. You may recall that Bennet was forced out in June 2020 after running an op-ed piece by Sen. Tom Cotton in which Cotton wrote that Black Lives Matter protests should be met with military force. Bennet tells Smith that his only regret was running an editor’s note after the fact.

Please support this free source of news and commentary.

“My mistake there was trying to mollify people,” Bennet said. He added that publisher A.G. Sulzberger showed no regard for Bennet’s 19-year career at the Times, which included putting himself in harm’s way while reporting from the West Bank and Gaza. “None of that mattered, and none of it mattered to A.G.,” Bennet said. “When push came to shove at the end, he set me on fire and threw me in the garbage and used my reverence for the institution against me. This is why I was so bewildered for so long after I had what felt like all my colleagues treating me like an incompetent fascist.”

Then, in a post-interview text to Smith, Bennet added: “One more thing that sometimes gets misreported: I never apologized for publishing the piece and still don’t.”

This is pretty entertaining stuff, but Bennet — and Smith — leave out a lot. Let’s start with the Cotton op-ed, an ugly little screed that he defended vociferously and then later admitted he hadn’t even read it before publication. This is sheer dereliction of duty. I don’t doubt that he couldn’t read everything that was published in the Times opinion section, but this was an incendiary piece about a fraught topic. And he knew it was coming, since it was a piece he had solicited.

But let’s get right to the heart of the matter. It was only a few months ago that the Times won a libel suit brought by Sarah Palin over a 2017 editorial tying her violent rhetoric to the 2011 shooting of then-congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords — a crime that also claimed the lives of six people. Bennet had inserted that falsehood while editing the editorial, and Palin’s lawsuit was factually correct. The Times won not because Palin was wrong but because, as public figure, she had to prove that Bennet’s actions were deliberate rather than negligent, and Bennet had little trouble proving his negligence during a cringe-worthy turn on the witness stand. It should be noted that at the time of the Cotton affair, Palin had already filed her lawsuit — something that had to enter into Sulzberger’s thinking.

Then there’s the matter of Times columnist Bret Stephens, who, in 2019, wrote a column saying that maybe Ashkenazi Jews really are genetically more intelligent and backed up his assertion by linking to an article co-authored by a white supremacist. Stephens was let off with a fairly mild editor’s note and a re-edit that toned down his toxic views. But it remains a source of astonishment that a Jewish columnist could write something that has been used to persecute Jews throughout history and that no one — least of all Bennet — caught it beforehand.

It’s no surprise that Bennet landed on his feet; he’s currently a columnist for The Economist. Of course, it suits his agenda to make his demise at the Times sound like a simple matter of being hounded out by the woke mob. That’s not what happened, or at least that’s not all that happened. Smith, who was the Times media columnist when Bennet finally slipped on his last banana peel, knows that as well as anyone.