Journalism

[Commentary] In Nov it will be 50 years since the Public Broadcasting Act, steeped in the Great Society idealism of President Lyndon Johnson’s administration, became law. The act turned programming like “Sesame Street,” “Reading Rainbow” and “Mr. Rogers Neighborhood” into true public goods. Now, on the silver anniversary of the act, it’s completely plausible that the Trump Administration might celebrate by making good on their threats to defund as much of the public broadcasting apparatus as they can.

While it’s unlikely NPR and PBS want this to happen, they have been preparing for a future without government money for a long time. The biggest stations have figured out how to bring in money without sacrificing quality. Still, the shift away from public money in public broadcasting has caused significant collateral damage: Public media, maybe unintentionally, now strives to serve an elite audience instead of an expansive and inclusive vision of the “public.” The hope is that more affluent audiences can be counted on to add to their closet full of pledge drive tote bags when the time comes. This is the same audience commercial news organizations look for so they can buy things advertisers sell. These target consumers have more news than they need. Perversely, that means even the most thought-provoking public media is used more for entertainment that anything else.

I worry if we continue to ignore the information needs of news consumers representing a wide swath of economic and demographic realities, we will deserve any loss of relevance we experience.

[Sarah Alvarez is the founder of Outlier Media, a data journalism service delivering high value information to low income news consumers in Detroit via SMS.]

You can’t trust the media, according to President Donald Trump — unless the media happens to tell you that many people don’t trust the media. In that case, you can trust that the media is reporting trustworthy information about the public’s distrust of the media.

President Trump claimed in a tweet Oct 22 that almost half of Americans believe major news outlets fabricate reports about him. He didn’t cite his source, perhaps because it was Politico, which he has consistently called unreliable. "It is finally sinking through. 46% OF PEOPLE BELIEVE MAJOR NATIONAL NEWS ORGS FABRICATE STORIES ABOUT ME. FAKE NEWS, even worse! Lost cred," the President tweeted.

Facebook is testing a major change that would shift non-promoted posts out of its news feed, a move that could be catastrophic for publishers relying on the social network for their audience. A new system being trialled in six countries including Slovakia, Serbia and Sri Lanka sees almost all non-promoted posts shifted over to a secondary feed, leaving the main feed focused entirely on original content from friends, and advertisements.

The change has seen users’ engagement with Facebook pages drop precipitously, by 60% to 80% . If replicated more broadly, such a change would destroy many smaller publishers, as well as larger ones with an outsized reliance on social media referrals for visitors.

The Interactive Advertising Bureau will testify that it supports efforts to strengthen disclosure requirements for online ads that expressly advocate for particular candidates. But the group will also warn lawmakers that tightening those rules won't necessarily affect the spread of "fake news" online. "Enhancing the existing framework by clarifying the responsibility of publishers, platforms, and advertisers in making available these disclosures to the public would create greater legal certainty across the industry and provide valuable information," IAB CEO and President Randall Rothenberg plans to tell Congress in a prepared statement. "But the 'fake news' and 'fake ads' at the center of the current storm did not engage in such overt candidate support. So they were not, and based on current Supreme Court jurisprudence will not, be regulated under the Federal Election Campaign Act."

Rothenberg will testify Oct 24 before the House Oversight subcommittee on information technology, which is slated to hold a hearing about online political ads. David Chavern, CEO of News Media Alliance, will also testify Tuesday, as well as representatives from the Center for Competitive Politics, and the Brennan Center for Justice, among others.

The story of Alice Rogoff and the Alaska Dispatch News is a cautionary tale that shows the limits of what a wealthy owner is willing, or able, to do for a struggling newspaper in the digital era. In the three years that Rogoff owned the paper, its value declined ninety-seven per cent. Of course, Rogoff’s debacle is emblematic of a much bigger financial crisis in American journalism. Even with the arrival of a handful of rich backers—Bezos, at the Post; the Sandler family, at ProPublica; and Laurene Powell Jobs, at The Atlantic—the broader industry has failed to find a viable digital-news model as traditional forms of revenue—advertising and subscriptions—continue to evaporate like rain in the Sahara.

Creating indispensible journalism—whether at the local or national level—is not without cost. It does not want to be free. If people aren’t willing to pay for it, like they pay for the Internet or cell-phone service, then it will surely disappear, sometimes right before your eyes.

The choice that President Donald Trump asks America to make is a simple one and one that he’s demanded since he jumped into the presidential race. Who are you going to believe, he asks: An industry of people whose jobs depend on presenting factually accurate information about what’s happening in the world — or me? And from the outset, we’ve seen how his supporters answer that question. They believe him.

The most recent demonstration of that result comes from a poll released from Marist College. Poll respondents were asked whom they trusted more, their favorite news source or Trump. Most Americans said their favorite news source, including large majorities of independents and huge majorities of Democrats. But most Republicans said they trust President Trump more, including just shy of two-thirds of those who voted for Trump in 2016.

At a time when political misinformation is in ready supply, and in demand, “Facebook, Google, and Twitter function as a distribution mechanism, a platform for circulating false information and helping find receptive audiences,” said Brendan Nyhan, a professor of government at Dartmouth College. For starters, said Colleen Seifert, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, “People have a benevolent view of Facebook, for instance, as a curator, but in fact it does have a motive of its own. What it’s actually doing is keeping your eyes on the site. It’s curating news and information that will keep you watching.” That kind of curating acts as a fertile host for falsehoods by simultaneously engaging two predigital social-science standbys: the urban myth as “meme,” or viral idea; and individual biases, the automatic, subconscious presumptions that color belief.

Stopping to drill down and determine the true source of a foul-smelling story can be tricky, even for the motivated skeptic, and mentally it’s hard work. Ideological leanings and viewing choices are conscious, downstream factors that come into play only after automatic cognitive biases have already had their way, abetted by the algorithms and social nature of digital interactions.

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s comments at George Mason were as disappointing as they were predictable. Last March, after President Donald Trump called CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC “the enemy of the American people,” Pai was asked by Sen Tom Udall (D-NM) at an oversight hearing if he agreed with the president. Chairman Pai took a pass, saying he didn’t want to “wade into the larger political debates.” But what about the FCC’s two Democrats, Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn? Surely, they came down hard on the Trump for trying to intimidate the media through the offices of the FCC. Nope.

Perhaps the problem is, they don’t have anybody on staff who writes tough. Allow me.
For Rosenworcel: I don’t have time or the inclination to educate that ignorant, two-bit real estate hustler on freedom of the press. But let me be clear: I will treat any Trump-inspired complaint against NBC with the same contempt I would Trump himself.
For Clyburn: As a former newspaper publisher, I will burn this place to ground before I let Trump or any other political hack use the FCC processes to intimidate or silence the news media in any fashion.

The fiery editorials of Sinclair Broadcast Group chief political analyst Boris Epshteyn will be beamed into seven in 10 American living rooms if the company is allowed to complete a merger that would transform it into a nationwide conservative TV juggernaut. But Sinclair’s proposed $3.9 billion purchase of Tribune Media Co. is encountering opposition from unlikely foes: media stalwarts of the right.

Newsmax Media, headed by friend-of-President Trump Chris Ruddy, One America News Network and TheBlaze, founded by former Fox News host Glenn Beck, are joining liberals in criticizing the merger. The Coalition to Save Local Media -- an alliance that includes One America, TheBlaze, the Common Cause policy group and Dish Network, which worries about Sinclair demanding higher fee -- said it was commencing an advertising campaign against the deal. Charles Herring, president of One America Network parent Herring Networks, said Sinclair will have leverage to force cable providers that most viewers rely upon to pay high fees for its TV stations’ signals, draining the pool of money available for independent programmers such as his news channel. “Small, large, left, right -- everybody has spoken out against this merger,” Herring said. “I’m unaware of anybody who isn’t directly or very closely associated with Sinclair speaking out in favor of the merger,” he added.

Experts are evenly split on whether the coming decade will see a reduction in false and misleading narratives online. Those forecasting improvement place their hopes in technological fixes and in societal solutions. Others think the dark side of human nature is aided more than stifled by technology.