Journalism

A version of the the New York Times’s Trump bump has materialized across the media landscape, as readers have been galvanized by a man who may well be the most polarizing president in American history. But the boon carries significant risks, especially for the Times. And it highlights some business-model vulnerabilities for a newspaper that is struggling mightily to wade through a brutal media climate: Not only is the company becoming increasingly dependent on Trump for its core subscription revenue, but its print readers are subsidizing the rest of the operation through repeated, and often opaque, price increases—a practice that at some point will have to ease.

Editorial staffers at The New York Times will stage a walk-out from the newsroom on June 29 to protest potential layoffs and staff reductions, according to an announcement from their union. "New York Times editors, reporters and staff will come together to leave the newsroom and their offices in protest of management’s elimination of copy editors," reads the NewsGuild of New York announcement. "After a year and a half of uncertainty about their futures, New York Times editors and staff have expressed feelings of betrayal by management. The staff has been offered buyouts and if a certain number of buyouts is not reached, layoffs will ensue for the editorial staff and potentially reporters as well." Recently, NewsGuild President Grant Glickson penned an open letter to New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet to share how the union feels about the layoffs, calling it a "humiliating process" and noting that the number of editors being let go "dumbfoundingly unrealistic."

President Donald Trump and his allies believe he’s gained a tactical advantage in his war with the media. As he escalates his attacks on the “failing media,” President Trump and his allies are increasingly convinced that recent evidence, including the retracted CNN piece on an aspect of the Russia investigations, will prove to skeptical voters that the mainstream media has a vendetta against the administration. Many White House staffers were “elated,” a person with knowledge of their conversations said, when they learned that three journalists had resigned over a botched story that claimed newly appointed Export-Import Bank official Anthony Scaramucci was being investigated for his ties to a Russian investment fund.

CNN host Don Lemon suggested that the White House press corps defy the White House camera ban, and turn on their cameras during the daily briefings. Reporters could certainly do that, but the White House would be within its rights to kick them out because reporters probably don’t have a First Amendment right to film or even attend the briefings, experts said. “Having a seat at a White House briefing is a privilege, not a right,” said Lucy Dalglish, dean of the University of Maryland journalism school. “The White House writes the rules,” Dalglish said. “If the networks turned on their cameras, my guess is that the entire network would be indefinitely expelled from the briefings. Credentials would be yanked.” At least reporters would not break any laws if they secretly taped. “I’m not sure any law would be broken if the the cameras were turned on surreptitiously,” Dalglish said. That’s because the District of Columbia is a “one party” jurisdiction that allows a person to record their conversations with another person, she said.

Fox News has hired Rep Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) to be a contributor for the cable news channel after the congressman ends his House term early on June 30. Rep Chaffetz will start his role at Fox on July 1, according to a statement from the network. "In this role he will offer political analysis across FNC and FOX Business Network’s (FBN) daytime and primetime programming," the network said.

The Utah congressman and head of the House Oversight Committee announced in May that he he would resign from Congress to pursue other opportunities. Shortly after, Washingtonian reported that he'd been telling fellow lawmakers he planned to join Fox News.

The April 2 edition of the Sunday New York Times, where the paper features its best journalism, included a six-page special section, “Women Today,” pegged to a summit in Manhattan a few days later. What wasn’t in any of the stories was the fact that the Times itself owned a minority stake in the conference.

Although the paper’s own standards call for transparency in this area, the section didn’t disclose the paper’s financial interest. These sections, often paired with Times-backed live events, are a growing part of the business model of what has been the newspaper of record, and just one example of the extent to which the newsroom and the company’s marketing department now work together in an effort to generate new sources of revenue. The editor of these sections meets once a week with the advertising department to discuss possible projects, while the advertising studio of the Times acts as a matchmaker between reporters and sponsors. In one sense, such initiatives might be seen as the new normal, as newspapers like the Times scramble for creative approaches in an industry whose finances are growing creakier by the day. But the Times is a unique beast, in journalism and within its own midtown Manhattan tower, and a bevy of new initiatives being rolled out to buoy the company’s bottom line worry journalists at a paper that has long maintained a firm separation between its news and business operations. Continuing job cuts in the newsroom, even as the business side of the paper continues to grow, have made those tensions even more acute.

President Donald Trump attacked Amazon June 28, claiming incorrectly that it owns The Washington Post in a scheme to dodge “internet taxes.” In fact, Amazon doesn’t own the newspaper. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos bought it himself. And while there isn’t a federal “internet tax,” as President Trump contends, Amazon has worked out arrangements with states to collect sales taxes on consumers’ online purchases — all the while seeking a national solution that many Republicans long have opposed.

President Trump, however, still took aim at Amazon in a tweet that sought to decry the Post’s political coverage as “fake news” — his latest in a series of attacks on both the tech company and the newspaper dating back to the 2016 presidential campaign. "The #AmazonWashingtonPost, sometimes referred to as the guardian of Amazon not paying internet taxes (which they should) is FAKE NEWS!" the President tweeted.

The "Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017" confirms that the screens-of-preference for younger audiences are mobile and dynamic. But identifying the platform does not necessarily tell you the source of the news. Consumers may look at an online or social media site to find reporting from established journalism sources (e.g. CNN, The New York Times, Fox) or just as easily from ersatz self-proclaimed bloggers or alt news sources.

The 136-page report delves more deeply into the distinction between the reception platforms and the actual content of the news. The Reuters Institute, which conducted the global research (30 countries on five continents) with the University of Oxford, acknowledges that the findings are "a reminder that the digital revolution is full of contradictions and exceptions." The results are also a roadmap toward future news consumption patterns, quantifying current usage patterns and offering eye-opening ideas for media providers about where to focus for future news packaging. The findings raise questions, such as whether today's 18-to-24 year-olds (only 24% of whom now consider TV as a primary news source) will migrate to TV sets by the time they are 55+ years old.

[Commentary] In 2016, Pew's "State of the Media" report noted a circulation decline at “a handful of historically prominent black papers.” But that decline is not uniform. “Because so few of these papers have regularly audited circulation figures…it is difficult to acquire industry-wide measures,” according to the report. (The Richmond Free Press has been audited annually since 1993.)

As black communities risk being overlooked by many newsrooms, so do black newspapers risk being overlooked or undervalued by advertisers. During the next year, I’ll study family, legacy and the viability of black newspapers in America as a Knight-Wallace fellow. When I first returned to the Richmond Free Press, I felt consumed by questions: How might we keep the paper relevant, and financially sound? Those questions evade easy answers, but they’ll power my research, and they sustain my conviction that no community deserves to be left behind.

[Regina H. Boone is a staff photojournalist for the Richmond Free Press, published in her hometown of Richmond, Virginia.]

In recent months, both CNN and Fox have retracted stories on their websites regarding particularly high-profile topics on the left and right, respectively. Both sites issued similar excuses: A breakdown in normal editorial standards that led to something being published that shouldn’t have been. Yet in most other ways, the two cases are a study in opposites.

CNN, on one hand, retracted its story within a day and issued an apology. The network immediately carried out an internal investigation. Three employees resigned. Those that remained were told that any future stories on the topic would need to be vetted by two top executives before publishing. Fox, on the other hand, took a week to retract the story, though it was debunked by other news outlets within hours. Little news of an investigation within the network emerged. No on-air apology was issued, despite a week of speculative coverage on the cable network. No employees resigned. And one of the network’s stars — Sean Hannity — continues to promote the conspiracy theory to this day.