Month: January 2017

In a follow-up to the “Innovation Report” it released in 2014, the New York Times has published what it calls the 2020 Report, a look at the newspaper’s strategy for success in a digital age. The key to that success appears to be doubling down on its subscription business, and leaving the online page-view race and dependence on platforms to others.

One theme that ran through the 2014 report was the fear that digital-only publishers like BuzzFeed, Vox and The Huffington Post were farther ahead, and more nimble, than the Times was — and that therefore they were getting more digital traffic and a larger audience than the paper thought was its due.

The Innovation Report said the Times was “falling behind in a critical area: the art and science of getting our journalism to readers. We have always cared about the reach and impact of our work, but we haven’t done enough to crack that code in the digital era.” The report went on to say that the paper needed to pursue “smart new strategies for growing our audience.”

By contrast, one of the defining concerns of the 2020 Report is getting people to pay for the Times’ journalism, rather than just competing for traffic with places like BuzzFeed and Vox . In part, that’s because executive editor Dean Baquet argues that the paper has won. “Today, the most robust of our competitors… are chasing our lead,” he said in a memo to Times staffers.

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Here’s the New York Times’ vision of what the future looks like”

There are many factors driving the rise of so-called “fake news,” whether it’s stories filled with hyper-inflated rumor and innuendo, or actual hoaxes that have been created and distributed by groups for political or financial gain. Facebook’s pushing of our emotional buttons is part of the picture, but so is what some researchers say is an increase in tribalism.

According to a study published in the American Journal of Political Science, entitled “Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines,” the intense feelings of loyalty or pride that people have for their political affiliation — and, by extension, the negative feelings they have towards the groups they see as their opponents — has intensified over the past few decades.

This phenomenon has become so powerful a predictor of behavior, even outside the realm of politics, that the researchers who did the study say political affiliation now has more influence on what people do and how they behave than race does.

How is this related to the rise of fake news? Because the researchers argue that this powerful desire to be seen as a member of a specific group or tribe influences the way we behave online in a variety of ways, including the news we share on social networks like Facebook.

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “What’s Driving Fake News Is an Increase in Political Tribalism”

In courtroom dramas, when a witness is testifying and starts to lie or refuses to answer, the lawyer asking the questions will often ask the judge for “permission to treat the witness as hostile.” At that point, the gloves come off, and the attorney starts to ask pointed questions, and then usually gets the witness to confess to the murder.

That’s the way things work in the movies. It’s not always so simple in the real world, with all of its shades of grey. But there’s an argument to be made that the media in general needs to treat president-elect Donald Trump as a hostile witness. He and the press are not on the same page — they’re not even reading the same book. And that isn’t likely to change. If anything, it’s probably going to get worse.

If you want a picture of what the next four years might look like, take a look at what happened during Trump’s first press conference in six months, held at Trump Tower in New York. According to several of those who were in attendance, the number of Trump loyalists and staffers — who clapped after almost every statement — outnumbered members of the actual press.

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Why the media needs to treat Donald Trump as a hostile witness”

Every day seems to bring a new ethical dilemma involving the soon-to-be president of the United States and the way the media handles his various Twitter pronouncements, including unsubstantiated allegations and foreign-policy gyrations. But the Trump bombshell that hit on Tuesday evening was larger than normal — if the word normal even has any meaning now.

The first explosion came courtesy of CNN, which reported that four senior intelligence officials — the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and the Director of National Intelligence — gave a briefing to both Donald Trump and President Barack Obama about Russian interference in the election. In that briefing, they summarized some serious allegations made about Trump’s connections to Russia, as well as some eye-opening allegations about his behavior while visiting the country.

According to the documents summarized in this briefing, which CNN’s sources said came from a source they believe to be credible (a former agent for the British security agency MI6), Trump engaged in a variety of sexual acts. The documents allege that these acts were recorded by Russian agents as part of an attempt to compromise the Republican presidential candidate, and they also allege that Trump cut deals with the Russian government related to U.S. foreign policy.

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Here’s why BuzzFeed was right to publish those Trump/Russia documents”

There are a host of important issues surrounding president-elect Donald Trump as he prepares to take office, including potential conflicts of interest involving his business affairs. Given that, it seems more crucial than ever for the press to keep a close eye on him, and the actions of his new administration. But is the traditional White House press corps the best way to do that?

Historically, the White House beat was seen as a plum assignment for the best in the profession. It was filled with newsworthy events, close-up meetings with the president, and the ability to gather behind-the-scenes color that informed the way the nation saw him and his administration. But much of that has changed in the era of always-on social media, to the point where some wonder whether the traditional press corps has outlived its usefulness.

In a recent column at the Poynter Institute, managing editor Ben Mullin argues that time has passed the press corps by. The “confined, ritualistic nature of the White House beat makes it a difficult slog for even the most adversarial reporter,” he says, and with dozens of journalists jockeying for the same stories, very little unique coverage emerges.

Mullin notes that most of the major stories we associate with previous administrations, including blockbuster events like Watergate and the NSA spying scandal, came from outside the White House, and didn’t have anything to do with the traditional press corps. He goes on to quote American University journalism professor W. Joseph Campbell:

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Here’s why the White House press corps has outlived its usefulness”

As Donald Trump has moved from being just another Republican candidate to the president-elect of the United States, speculation has intensified about the “loose cannon” approach he appears to take when it comes to using Twitter. Does he just tweet whatever he feels like saying at any moment, or are his tweets crafted by a PR team?

According to Sean Spicer, who will soon become the White House press secretary for the Trump administration, no one — including Spicer — has any idea what the incoming president is going to say until they see it on Twitter (or get the blowback from one of his statements, presumably).

“I do not get a memo [about what the tweets will contain]. He drives the train on this,” Spicer said during an event on Wednesday night in Chicago, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. The event also included President Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, as well as political commentator David Axelrod, a former Obama adviser.

At the same time, however, Spicer also rejected the idea that Trump doesn’t consider what he is going to say, or what the potential outcome of his comments might be. It’s a “misconception… that he is just randomly tweeting,” Spicer said. “He is a very strategic thinker.”

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “No one knows what Trump is going to tweet, his press secretary says”