mathewingram.com/work

A key plank in Donald Trump’s election campaign was his contempt for what he called the “dishonest media,” and that position has not softened with his inauguration as the 45th president of the United States. If anything, he and the rest of his White House team have doubled down on this approach, in an attempt to make the media look even less trustworthy.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer started the process with his first press briefing immediately after the inauguration, in which he lambasted the press for getting the numbers wrong. More recently, Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway picked up the torch and used it to set fire to the traditional professional relationship between the media and the president.

In an interview this weekend with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, Conway — a former lawyer and political pollster who was named a senior counselor to the president after Trump won the election — asked why more journalists haven’t been fired for their attacks on Trump and his administration.

“Who is cleaning house? Which one is going to be the first network to get rid of these people who said things that were just not true? Talk about fake news, talk about alternative facts. Not one network person has been let go. Not one silly political analyst and pundit who talked smack all day long about Donald Trump has been let go.”

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

The Sundance Film Festival in Utah used to be a place where the cult films of tomorrow got their first showing amid small crowds of movie buffs. But increasingly it has become the place where streaming services like Netflix — and its rapidly growing competitor Amazon — shop for potential hit movies they can add to their digital catalogs.

At the most recent version of the festival, both Netflix and Amazon were once again the biggest spenders, snapping up movies that they hope will boost their audience numbers and possibly even increase their chances of winning awards. Amazon’s film Manchester By The Sea was the first movie produced by a streaming service to be nominated for an Oscar.

That movie was one of the big ones that Amazon landed at last year’s festival, paying $10 million for the rights to the movie and beating out several smaller competitors. In some cases these deals don’t even wait for the official festival to begin, but are signed in the days leading up to the event based on the pre-show buzz about a specific property.

This year Amazon also signed one of the largest checks, and this time it wasn’t for a drama but a romantic comedy called The Big Sick, starring Silicon Valley star Kumail Nanjiani, which the online retailer paid $12 million for. Amazon also paid $6 million for a Grateful Dead documentary, $3 million for a movie called Landline, and more than $2 million for a documentary about the terrorist group ISIS called City of Ghosts.

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

If you work in the media, or are even tangentially interested in it, you’ve probably read that Steve Bannon interview in the New York Times, the one where President Trump’s adviser attacks the mainstream press for its cluelessness, and says that they deserve to feel humiliated and irrelevant. And if you haven’t read it, you’ve probably seen plenty of outraged responses.

Some of those who reacted to the interview warned Bannon — and by extension the entire Trump White House — that picking fights with the media is a mistake, citing the example of Richard Nixon and Watergate. The message was clear: Don’t attack us or we will bring you down.

Steve Bannon is many things, including the chairman of the right-wing news site Breitbart News, who some believe has white nationalist (i.e. racist) sympathies. But one thing he almost certainly isn’t is stupid. So why would he go out of his way to try and humiliate the media?

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

Alphabet is best known as the holding company that owns Google, but its focus is increasingly on all of the other bets it has made in addition to the search engine — whether it’s a bet on the future of home automation, with products like the Nest thermostat and the Google Home smart assistant, or bets on mobile hardware like its new Pixel line of smartphones.

That doesn’t mean anything is wrong with Google itself. Far from it, in fact. The search engine continues to be a giant cash-spewing machine at the center of the Alphabet universe, providing the never-ending stream of money that has allowed it to branch out in many different directions.

Google’s overall revenue climbed 25% in the most recent quarter to $25.8 billion. Not surprisingly, that made up the vast majority of Alphabet’s revenue, which grew 22% year over year to $26.1 billion.

However, the company’s earnings of $9.36 per share (excluding certain items) were well below the consensus estimate of $9.64, which helped push the stock down (GOOG) by more than 3% in after-hours trading on Thursday.

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

Facebook has been blamed by many for its complicity in the explosion of “fake news” during the recent election campaign, a phenomenon that some say helped Donald Trump take the Oval Office. After initially dismissing the issue, Mark Zuckerberg has talked more recently about taking concrete steps to attack the problem.

One step that Facebook is taking is to alter the way its “Trending Topics” section works, in order to try and keep fake news items from moving up that leaderboard, which sits in the upper right-hand section of every user’s page. The change was announced on Wednesday in a blog post.

Instead of ranking topics based purely on the number of people sharing, liking or commenting on them, Facebook says it will now look at whether those topics or stories are also being covered by a wide range of other publishers and media outlets. The company said it hopes this will reduce the likelihood of having an article from a fake-news website dominating the trending topics.

In addition to some of the fact-checking features that Facebook announced recently — which include integrating with the work being done by organizations like Politifact — this is a good step towards improving the environment for news on the social network.

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

Note: This piece I wrote for Fortune magazine in January of 2017 caused me no end of problems, and looking back I think may have helped lead to my eventual departure from Fortune. The publisher of Fortune, Alan Murray — the man who hired me, along with a group of other Gigaom writers, after Gigaom shut down in 2015 — made it abundantly clear that he did not like this piece at all.

I argued that differences of opinion between columnists and editors are normal, but that if I supported my argument with facts (which I think I did) then it should be allowed to run. He let it be published, but under protest. Not long afterward, he ordered that any piece I wrote that involved Trump had to be approved by him personally before being published. I left Fortune in May.

As expected, Donald Trump’s blatant disregard for accuracy has not moderated itself any now that he has become the 45th president of the United States. In just the last few days, he has made multiple statements that are clearly false, including comments about the size of the crowd at his inauguration and — more importantly — whether millions of people voted illegally.

This behavior has sparked a kind of existential debate within the U.S. news media. How should a news organization respond when the president makes false statements or repeats unsupported claims? Is it ever appropriate to use the word “lie” in such circumstances?

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

Social media, especially Twitter, played a central role in the rise of Donald Trump from celebrity TV host and real-estate magnate to 45th president of the United States. So it seems fitting that Twitter was also the scene of a strange kind of guerrilla uprising on Tuesday against the Trump administration and its practices involving social media.

What seems to have triggered the revolt was the treatment of a National Parks Service account on the weekend. After it re-posted Twitter updates that called into question the size of the crowds at Trump’s inauguration, the account’s activity was frozen. The following day, the tweets in question had been deleted, replaced by an apology for “the mistaken retweets.”

Other government agencies, including the EPA and the USDA’s research arm, have also had their social-media accounts frozen indefinitely as of Tuesday, and staff memos have said that these accounts will likely be more “centrally controlled” in the future.

In the face of all this, the Twitter account for Badlands National Park in South Dakota posted a series of tweets on Tuesday calling attention to the rise of global warming, something President Trump has publicly referred to as a hoax. The posts drew cheers, along with thousands of re-tweets, and the account quickly gained tens of thousands of new followers.

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

Employees at several government departments and agencies, including the Environmental Protection Association and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have been ordered not to make any statements or provide any documents to the public, whether via social media or by providing comments and/or documents — including press releases — to journalists or media outlets.

It’s not clear how long these gag orders will remain in place, or whether they are simply designed to freeze activity until Trump’s hand-picked staff can issue new regulations on social media or public interaction at those agencies. The EPA has also been ordered to freeze all grants, contracts and other agreements until further notice.

A memo sent to EPA staff said that there should be no press releases sent to “external audiences” and that “no social media will be going out.” The memo also says that a digital strategist will be coming in to oversee the agency’s social-media policies, and that “existing, individually controlled social-media accounts may become more centrally controlled.”

The memo also ordered that no new posts be made to any agency blogs, that staff send a list of any external speaking arrangements, that no new documents be uploaded to any externally-facing website and that “incoming media requests will be carefully screened.”

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

After trying multiple times to find a way to survive as a standalone entity, Yahoo finally convinced Verizon to buy most of the failing Internet company last year for $4.8 billion. But the sale process has been anything but smooth, and one of the biggest potential roadblocks was the news that the company was the target of two massive hacks that exposed the data of hundreds of millions of users.

Although the two attacks happened in 2013 and 2014, Yahoo didn’t disclose this information until last year — and most importantly, it didn’t divulge that news until after it had already signed the deal with Verizon. The telecom giant has since said it is re-evaluating the offer.

Now, to add insult to injury, the Securities and Exchange Commission has opened an investigation into the company’s failure to tell shareholders about the incidents, according to the Wall Street Journal. The securities regulator is just one of a number of federal and state agencies that has asked Yahoo for documents on the attacks, along with the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. attorney’s office.

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

For fans of net neutrality — that is, the principle that network providers shouldn’t discriminate between different kinds of content when delivering services to consumers — a nightmare scenario was that Donald Trump would name an FCC chairman who would gut the protection for neutrality. And that scenario just came to pass, with the appointment of Ajit Pai.

Pai, who was named to the position of chairman on Monday by the Trump administration, has been a member of the Federal Communications Commission since 2012, so there is plenty of evidence available when it comes to his views on net neutrality. And he doesn’t like it at all.

In a speech in December after Trump had won the election, Pai said he wanted to “take a weed whacker” to the FCC’s regulations, and one of the things he had his sights set on was the FCC’s Open Internet Order, which was adopted in 2015. That decision made Internet providers “common carriers,” and required them to carry data without playing favorites.

The new FCC chairman has said that he believes net neutrality is “a solution that won’t work for a problem that doesn’t exist.” He says he hasn’t seen any evidence that consumers are disadvantaged by network providers discriminating between different content or services, and therefore such legislation isn’t necessary, and harms small ISPs.

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

At the Trump administration’s first official White House press briefing on Monday, press secretary Sean Spicer was clearly trying hard to overcome some of the negative impressions he created with his performance just a couple of days before, after the inauguration of his boss as the 45th president of the United States. But should we buy this new nice-guy act?

The short answer is no. Trump has made it clear both during his campaign and since being elected that he sees the media as untrustworthy and beneath contempt, and Spicer’s attack on the press following the inauguration seemed a lot more sincere than his attempts to apologize for it.

Just to recap, the press secretary went ballistic on Saturday, after numerous reports pointed out that Trump’s inauguration ceremony in Washington drew much smaller crowds than the inauguration of his predecessor, Barack Obama. Photos were posted and shared on social media that confirmed this fact, and the New York Times even wrote a story quoting crowd experts to that effect.

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

As Donald Trump assumes the mantle of 45th president of the United States, much of the mainstream press is going through a soul-searching process, trying to understand how it got the outcome of the election so thoroughly wrong — and also how to survive under what is likely to be one of the most media-hostile administrations in recent memory.

In trying to figure out where to lay the blame for its failure, the media has gone after pollsters like Nate Silver for making bad projections, criticized analysts for misinterpreting the results, and targeted Hillary Clinton’s team for managing the campaign badly. Some have even embraced potential Russian involvement in the election like a get-out-of-responsibility free card: You can’t blame us for getting it wrong, they cry — it was Russia’s fault!

But was it Russia’s fault that so many leading media outlets paid so much attention to leaked Clinton emails that contained little of substance? No. Did the polls cover up — or make journalists ignore — a groundswell of discontent in the heart of the country? No. Did someone force them to give so much credence to FBI allegations about Clinton? No. These were self-inflicted wounds.

In the introduction to a series that will look back at the events leading up to the election, Silver is on the defensive somewhat, justifying his analysis of the poll results and pointing out that he predicted Clinton would be weak with the Electoral College and that Trump might prevail. But other parts of his post-mortem ring even more true, as much as we might wish they didn’t.

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

Many people may have assumed that Donald Trump’s loose-cannon approach to Twitter might soften as he got closer to his inauguration as president. But if anything it has become even more inflammatory.

And according to the president-elect himself, that isn’t going to change once he enters the White House. Why? Because it allows him to do an end-run around the “dishonest media.”

When the interviewers asked whether Trump was planning to give up his @RealDonaldTrump handle on Twitter and use the @POTUS account that was used by President Obama, the president-elect said that he had no intention of giving up his account, which has about 25 million followers. Why? Because “it’s working,” he said.

As is often the case, Trump’s views on the matter are somewhat difficult to parse because he speaks in sentence fragments, switching from thought to thought without completing one before moving on. This is a transcript of his actual comments:

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

When it comes to the mainstream media, what Facebook wants is usually what Facebook gets, if only because it commands the attention of more than 1.5 billion people. And what the giant social network has wanted for some time now is video — lots of it, preferably the live kind, in order to help promote its Facebook Live video feature.

At one point last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that Facebook was paying a number of mainstream media outlets (including the New York Times and BuzzFeed) a total of about $50 million to get them to create and upload video. Video also seemed to be promoted more in users’ feeds as well, and so many publishers started beefing up their video teams and spending more on creating video.

Now, it seems as though that gravy train may be ending, at least for media companies who were hoping to cash in with viral short clips. Facebook is said to be ending its payment program, according to a recent report at Recode, and is now moving its focus more towards promoting Facebook Live use by individuals.

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I worked from 2015 to 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