Journalism

In February 2017, four political scientists formed Bright Line Watch. Their mission was a chilling sign of the times, a reflection of the fears that swept across the United States as Donald Trump swept into office. They existed, they said, to “monitor the status of democratic practices and highlight potential threats to American democracy.” The danger was from our new president, and from ourselves.

The third wave of results, which will be presented at a conference on threats to American democracy on Oct 6, contains good news of a sort: Trump’s presidency, at least in the view of these experts, has not done visible damage to the workings of the American political system. The media is more invigorated, more profitable, and more trusted since his election. The firing of FBI Director James Comey led to the appointment — from within Trump’s own administration, no less — of special counsel Bob Mueller. Early in Trump’s presidency, Yuval Levin, the editor of the conservative journal National Affairs, predicted to me that this White House was likelier to be defined by “dysfunction than autocracy,” and so far he’s been right.

For the exhausted, overworked journalists on President Donald Trump’s trail, the duty to document the president and the hypercharged news cycle he drives takes a personal toll. President Trump has contributed to a new and confounding environment for the media. Since the election, dazed journalists and media-watchers have gathered countless times to make sense of that environment, often raising more questions than they’ve been able to answer.

[Commentary] A president who once contended that nine unnamed sources in one report couldn't possibly be real is waking up to articles with source tallies that sometimes soar into double digits. For example, ProPublica said its Oct 4 report that Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. were close to being charged with felony fraud in 2012 was “based on interviews with 20 sources familiar with the investigation, court records, and other public documents.” Trump can cry “fake news” all he wants, but the frequency and volume of leaks makes it difficult to sell the idea that reporters are simply making things up.

Facebook is testing a new feature to give users more information about news articles being shared on their feeds as the company fights allegations that its platform has been enabling the spread of misinformation. Facebook announced that it would be trying out a button that will show users more context about the subject of a shared article link as well as the source. “The additional contextual information is pulled from across Facebook and other sources, such as information from the publisher’s Wikipedia entry, a button to follow their Page, trending articles or related articles about the topic, and information about how the article is being shared by people on Facebook,” their blog post reads.

Recent and historical work in psychology shows mere exposure to fake news makes it spread. To understand why — and the extent to which false stories seep into our brains — we need to understand the psychology of the illusory truth effect. The more we hear a piece of information repeated, the more we’re likely to believe it. “Even things that people have reason not to believe, they believe them more” if the claims are repeated, Gord Pennycook, a psychologist who studies the spread of misinformation at Yale University, says. And recent research shows the illusory truth effect is in play when we hear or read fake news claims repeated, regardless of how ridiculous or illogical they sound. It’s research Google and Facebook must wrestle with as the world’s most powerful media organizations. When they do, it will be clear that it’s time for them to get serious about editing out falsehoods.

In an effort to support investigative journalism at local and regional news organizations, ProPublica announced the ProPublica Local Reporting Network. The yearlong initiative will pay salary, plus an allowance for benefits, for reporters at up to six partner news organizations in cities with populations below 1 million. The reporters will still work in and report to their home newsrooms, but they will receive extensive support and guidance from ProPublica throughout 2018.

In addition to news organizations receiving the one-year grant, reporters will collaborate with a ProPublica senior editor, and ProPublica’s expertise with data, research and engagement will be made available for the work. Each investigation from the ProPublica Local Reporting Network will be published or broadcast by both the reporter’s home newsroom and ProPublica. In a similar collaboration with the New York Daily News in 2016, one of the News’s reporters, Sarah Ryley, worked on a project about the NYPD’s abuse of nuisance abatement laws, which had police kicking people out of their homes without due process. ProPublica helped to develop the work, edit it and dig deeper into the data. The collaborative series led to sweeping legislative reforms, and ultimately won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize for public service. Eligible newsrooms are invited to apply for the ProPublica Local Reporting Network by Nov. 3. Winning entries will be announced in December, to enable work to begin on Jan. 2.

Digiday published a story last week suggesting that many major publishers are shifting away from Facebook toward other social platforms to distribute their work. “Facebook loses attention as publishers shift focus to other platforms,” the headline announced. But if publishers are really going cold on Facebook, they have a funny way of showing it. Let’s take CNN, which Digiday reported was “de-emphasizing Facebook” in favor of other platforms.

Far from showing signs of de-emphasizing Facebook, this was the sixth month out of the last seven where the number of Facebook posts surpassed the number made in the previous month. Data collected from CrowdTangle (which is now owned by Facebook) indicates that CNN posted more in September to Facebook than any month in the last two years. If the newsroom resources being dedicated to Facebook are being reeled in, it isn’t reflected in the number of raw posts.

Just 5% of the more than 3,000 news stories studied during the first 100 days of the Donald Trump presidency cited a member of the public, one of nine source types analyzed. That figure compares with about three-quarters of stories that cited Trump or a member of his administration, 35% that cited another news outlet or journalist, 26% that cited a Republican member of Congress and 21% that cited a Democratic member. Stories that cited a member of the public also are less common than those that cite an expert or an interest group. The low level of citizen voices held true for the five most prominent topic areas studied: the president’s political skills, immigration, appointments and nominations, U.S.-Russia relations, and health care. Across these five topics, which accounted for two-thirds of the coverage, citations of everyday Americans never rose above 7%.

Digital news and social media continue to grow, with mobile devices rapidly becoming one of the most common ways for Americans to get news. As journalists and media practitioners gather for the annual Online News Association conference, here are 10 key findings from recent Pew Research Center reports about today’s digital news media landscape:

Newsroom employees at The Los Angeles Times are trying to form a union, setting up a potential clash with the newspaper’s parent company, Tronc. After months of organizing, the committee behind the push for a union drafted a one-page letter laying out its reasoning and left printouts on employees’ desks the night of Oct 3.The unsigned letter calls for improved working conditions, higher pay, more generous benefits and protections for staff members against “unilateral change by Tronc.” The letter also says “a majority of the newsroom” had signed union cards supporting representation by the NewsGuild, which represents 25,000 reporters, editors, photojournalists and other media workers at news organizations across the United States.