Student journalists find success, peril at the same time

One group of journalists faces an obstacle that no others do.

Homework.

Those journalists are college student journalists, and in between all those classes and assigned readings, they’ve been kicking butt lately. They are deftly chronicling the major national issues playing out on college campuses across the nation: The government assaults on academic freedom and DEI, and especially the turmoil spawned by the war in Gaza. They’re also doing impactful investigations – at Stanford University and the University of Florida, for examples – and sometimes they scoop the professionals.

The Crimson White just did that. On March 26 it broke the story of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arresting a UA doctoral student at his off-campus home the previous morning and sending him to a detention facility. Local and national professional media, including The New York Times, gave credit to the CW in their stories.

The reporter on that story, CW editor in chief Maven Navarro, said she got an email tip about the arrest and was able to confirm it and publish her story within an hour. The tip, she said, went to multiple media outlets in the state, but she had an advantage. “We know our campus better than any other journalism outlet. … Being on campus, I did have the advantage of being able to more quickly verify things.”

Navarro sees another edge in getting stories. “As a student, when you’re approached by another student, it makes it a lot less intimidating than being approached by a professional journalist who you don’t know.”

Of course, there are disadvantages too. “I can’t wait to not have to go to class and do classwork and (instead) just get to do this all day,” she said.

Because of their familiarity with the nature of the field, her journalism professors (of which I’m one) are more understanding than some of her other professors when breaking news interferes with schoolwork, she said. The ICE story caused her to miss a test in a journalism class. The professor (who is not me) let her make it up the next day.

There are much more difficult – and frightening – challenges to being a student journalist than the burden of juggling commitments. I wrote previously about the problem of harassment. There’s also a problem with student press rights and university censorship. Inside Higher Ed wrote in September: “Across the country, universities have quietly shut down speech about the Israel-Hamas war, including student newspapers. According to Mike Hiestand, senior legal counsel at the Student Press Law Center, more student journalists have been chastised or punished for coverage of pro-Palestinian protests than for any other single issue in his 30 years at SPLC.”

Now the second Trump administration has created another alarm: Fear of punishment for expressing views that offend the government, or even for merely reporting on events that do.

An April 7 article in The Guardian reported that some campus journalists – mostly but not exclusively from other countries – are quitting or asking for removal of their bylines on opinion pieces and news stories that include pro-Palestinian views. College news outlets are also seeing a rise in requests to take down online stories and give anonymity to interviewees, according to the article. The detention of a Tufts University student whose only apparent offense was to criticize Israel in a published piece has reverberated badly.

Examples of fear of retribution seem more frequent at universities with greater demographic diversity and in other regions of the country, but Navarro said she’s come across it, too.

from the new york times

Two weeks ago, a former CW reporter who is still an international student at UA asked her to remove from the CW website two stories that the reporter wrote in 2020: A hard-news story reporting on a Black Lives Matter protest in Tuscaloosa and a feature story about the contributions of international students to the UA community. Navarro granted the request, which she said she wouldn’t have done a year ago because, well, journalists aren’t supposed to alter the archives for any reason. “I have changed my views on that.”

Like any good journalist must, she’s making various decisions based on circumstances. No topics are off limits for CW stories, she said, and she has declined a half dozen requests this semester to take down online photos from Gaza-related rallies on campus, even those showing protester faces. She has seen an increase in potential interviewees, including professors, asking for anonymity in stories related to Gaza, DEI and teaching “divisive concepts” in the classroom. She said she will sometimes grant anonymity if her reporters can’t find a source willing to attach their name.

College campuses are a favored target for the threatening political agendas of the moment. Student journalists – no, let’s call them journalists with a second job – are meeting the moment with both excellent journalism and responsible accommodations. “I always like to emphasize,” Navarro said, “how important student journalism is.”

With a lot at stake, Big Media tries rising to the occasion

Image by Mohamed Hassan

You might think the national news media are courageously exposing the dangers and harms of the Donald Trump administration. Or you might think they’re cowering and groveling in the face of Trump’s likely retribution. Either way, you only have to wait about 20 minutes and you’ll get more evidence for your side.

Media critics have made a cottage industry out of slamming the press, with a special focus on corporate, for-profit owners who have meddled in their newsrooms’ journalism to soften it and protect their other business interests. Certainly, there’s evidence. The billionaire owners of The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times, for two instances, have done this and disgraced themselves.

Then again, to choose a few examples to the contrary, the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal has editorialized repeatedlyy against Trump policies and revealed lapses in national security communications. While the owner of CBS is weakheartedly considering settling Trump’s meritless lawsuit against the network’s 60 Minutes news show, the show has aired segments critical of the government almost every week since Trump regained office. Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos decreed the Opinions section would limit its range of topics and restrict viewpoints – seemingly to curry Trump’s favor – yet Post columnist Dana Milbank savaged Trump in a commentary a mere two days later. The Post continues to report aggressively, including this exclusive Sunday night. The owner of The Atlantic, Laurene Powell Jobs, is a billionaire, but she wavered not at all through the publication’s remarkable Signalgate coverage and the barrage of flak it brought.

Few other kinds of businesses operate this way, but journalism ethics call for owners and business department executives to allow newsroom professionals to produce their work independently and without influence from financial and political considerations. It’s why we see internal protests and resignations when C-suite executives infringe upon that. Opinion pieces that represent the viewpoint of the organization are the only exceptions.

Despite the seemingly regular exceptions, and Fox News, of course, I think major national news organizations deserve more credit than they’re getting for documenting the many disasters of the second Trump administration so far. But I wanted a second, expert opinion.

My department colleague, Dr. Wilson Lowrey, an internationally recognized authority on media organizations, believes major outlets have been “somewhat less aggressive” in covering Trump’s second term than his first. “The first time around,” he wrote in an email, “the political professional class (lawyers, journalists, government officials, military) were so outraged and this was so new — this fueled the perceived imperative to contain it as well as the sense that it was possible to contain it. … This time around, I detect a bit of resignation.”

But he sees good work being done. “I'd stop short of saying U.S. legacy media (New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, etc.) are shirking their professional duty in their news reporting, at least to this point.”

yes, the wall street journal faces less risk of trump retribution than more liberal media but this april 7 editorial is still remarkable for it.

If Big Media disappoints, one reason is that it, like all big companies, is “risk averse,” Lowrey said. He points to Bezos’ decision to restrict the Post’s opinion section. “The political, economic and journalistic times are volatile, unpredictable, so he steered toward the middle, toward what he thinks is a relatively safe political haven where the Post can wait out the storm.”

Then there’s Trump. “Trump’s policies don’t always fall neatly in the left-right or Democrat-GOP dichotomy, and this may be sand in the gears of traditional political journalism. … The routines for covering this kind of presidential politics are not as well developed, perhaps leading to some hesitance, caution, a little confusion.”

And that supposed barrier between news decisions and business decisions? In Lowrey’s view, if it’s getting weaker that’s less because of owners decreeing violations and more because of an internal change in journalism culture. “Newsroom leaders are urged to ‘get real’ and get familiar with their organization's and the industry's alarming financial problems, and ‘pitch in’ and help” by taking steps to attract page views, subscribers, and social media followers.

The new culture does not necessarily mean pulling punches in coverage. “The legacy media are doing their job and doing it pretty well,” Lowrey said, “but in a ‘normal’ day to day way, waiting to see how Trump's seemingly self-destructive policies play out.”

Many critics, of course, think that media normalcy is not what’s needed right now.

How guilty people attack the news media

EDITED ILLUSTRATION (ORIGINAL BY MOHAMED HASSAN)

(AMUSING ANECDOTE: WHEN I FIRST TRIED TO CREATE AN ILLUSTRATION USING AN AI IMAGE GENERATOR, I USED KEYWORDS “LYING POLITICIAN” AND GOT FOUR AI IMAGES OF DONALD TRUMP.)

Having been caught using an unauthorized messaging service to discuss details of a military bombing operation with a journalist inadvertently invited into the chat, members of the Trump administration have offered the finest selection of reasons from which gullible people can choose and convince themselves that this highly troubling story is actually no big deal at all.

In fact, the “flood the zone” responses to The Atlantic’s scoop cover pretty much all the different possibilities for propagandist responses when a news organization publishes a negative story about a powerful person or group. Here’s a list of the customary options, all of which we’ve heard or seen from one or more administration officials since the Signal story went public on Monday:

• Attack the accuracy of the story. Even claim fabrication. (In the Signal case, fittingly, one administration official made this claim even after another one had already confirmed authenticity. “Hoax” was a talking point all week but it was never clear which part was the hoax.)

• Engage in a game of meaningless semantics. (The White House points, for instance, to a contrast between “war plans” and “attack plans,” a distinction without a difference.)

• Accuse the reporter of political bias or a personal grudge against the subject. Smear the reporter’s character. Make him part of a conspiracy. (The journalist in the group chat, Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, was deemed “highly discredited” by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Donald Trump called him a “sleazebag.” Another administration official also called him a bag, except that official said the bag contained scum, not sleaze. And he was working with Democrats, of course.)

• Allege illegal or unethical behavior in how the reporter obtained the story. (National Security Adviser Mike Waltz suggested, wrongly, that Goldberg got himself into the meeting by some kind of nefarious plot.)

• Engage in “whataboutism,” meaning to deflect from the issue at hand to talk about a supposedly parallel case that the media supposedly ignored. (White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt offered world-record non sequiturs by bringing up Hillary Clinton’s private email server and Hunter Biden’s laptop.)

• Argue that the story isn’t newsworthy. (The White House points to the success of the bombing mission, claims the text messages included no classified information, and argues that use of Signal was perfectly reasonable. And come on, people, haven’t we all texted the wrong person by mistake?)

• Threaten some kind of legal action. (OK, this is one I haven’t come across regarding The Atlantic – yet.)

Journalists expect responses like these when they do critical stories. The Atlantic offered a dagger of a comeback by publishing a more complete text chain. News outlets ought to push back. Defend the reputation. And because they need to try to build back their diminishing trust among the public, outlets need to share more of their editorial thinking behind controversial reports. That does not mean, however, getting into back-and-forth shouting matches with the subjects of those reports. Stand behind the journalism, explain it, but let the work itself do most of the talking.

The lesson for the public is this: When you see a wrongdoer respond with one or more (or all!) of the tactics listed here, that’s a pretty good sign that the journalist nailed the story.

Trump’s fight with the Associated Press is about more than one word

from google maps

UPDATE (April 8): A Trump-appointed judge ruled that the White House ban on access for The Associated Press was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The ban lasted two months. No one in White House media ever boycotted anything.

The worst part about President Trump renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America is that John Mellencamp has to re-record “Pink Houses” and it isn’t going to rhyme anymore.

That, and the Trump administration trying to bully The Associated Press into conforming.

Many news media are refusing to conform. Some others, such as Axios, have pathetically caved. Some, such as Gannett, will write the world’s longest sentence and acknowledge both names.

But it’s the AP specifically that’s getting punished, with its reporters banned from White House press opportunities for the past week. Trump reiterated the punishment on Tuesday. The AP, which is following Trump’s order to rename Mount Denali as Mount McKinley, says it won’t change its gulf references because Trump can’t dictate the name of a gulf that isn’t completely within the U.S. and because it doesn’t want to confuse its many international readers who still recognize the 400-year-old name “Gulf of Mexico.” The White House seeks to justify its punitive actions by saying the AP is engaging in “misinformation,” which is like a kettle being called black by an oil tank. (And if misinformation is the standard, Fox News should be confined to standing on Pennsylvania Avenue.)

Various media reports say the Trump administration is picking on the AP because it’s annoyed by what it sees as a pattern of progressive language choices in the wire service’s widely followed (but non-binding!) stylebook. The crowd belittling wokeness* remains offended, for instance, about the AP’s decision to begin capitalizing “Black,” but not “white.” Unlike the AP, they see no problem with “illegal immigrants,” for another example. I’ve been using or teaching the AP Stylebook for an entire career and while there’s certainly some silliness, the AP has evolved its recommendations to eliminate language that is understandably offensive to a variety of minority groups. In other cases, the AP made decisions that required wrestling with the often competing considerations of political neutrality and truth.

Word choices are often fraught with politics. Consider “The Civil War” vs. “The War Between the States.” Or “pro-abortion” vs. “pro-choice.” One person’s “militant” is another person’s “terrorist.“ And someone else’s “freedom fighter.”

donald trump called out the ap again on tuesday. community note: his executive order is not a law.

“Gulf of America” is an exercise in ethnocentrism and xenophobia. The White House then chose to use the issue not only to try to bully the AP but also to try to spook all media into obeying on matters of language. In the even bigger picture, Trump’s actions are a dopamine hit for his anti-media voter base, and an attempt to assert power over the press. He hopes that translates into greater reluctance to challenge presidential actions and policies.

News organizations have rightly called out the White House for its treatment of the AP, and they’re quietly pushing the White House behind the scenes, but defense of journalistic independence and free speech demands stronger, collective action. Being ignored is really painful for Trump, as is not having anyone to fight with. So, until the AP’s access gets restored, colleagues should boycott White House press events.** It wouldn’t take everyone to be effective. (Read this for a contrary opinion.)

Media politics and egos would never allow it to happen, but I have long believed that press conferences with presidents and press secretaries, especially the current ones, could be adequately handled by one TV camera and one aggressive pool reporter, while everyone else in the huge White House press corps devotes their time more wisely to finding truth and impactful news stories within the executive branch. What’s funny is, in my imagined scenario, that lone pool reporter was always The Associated Press.

* The AP added “woke” to its stylebook in 2023 but discourages its use.

** In 2009 major TV networks refused to interview a top Treasury Department official because the Obama administration had told Fox News it couldn’t participate. The White House eventually changed its mind.

The Trump storyline that reporters must not fail on

photo illustration by gerd altmann

After being understandably maligned in the aftermath of November’s presidential election, much of the national news media has responded to President Donald Trump’s early grenade throwing exhibition with some excellent journalism.

Media critics and Trump haters rightly still vent about weak word choices. Trump’s Gaza idea, for instance, is worse than “audacious” (New York Times’ first version) and worse than “brazen” (revised version). They also vent about a seeming routineness to story presentations. One respected critic wondered why TV networks aren’t doing wall-to-wall coverage as they do for natural disasters and why they aren’t writing chyrons that say “America in Crisis.” And corporate media bosses who have bowed down to Trump with Mar-a-Lago visits, lawsuit settlements, inauguration donations and squelched candidate endorsements deserve every ounce of the outrage.

But it’s still possible for ethical newsrooms, where publishers and owners aren’t meddling in day-to-day stories and editors aren’t self-censoring, to do good work. Although it’s mentally hard for many people to read or watch the news these days, the good work has been out there since Trump Part II began. Outlets large and small, legacy and digital-only, are uncovering news and placing it in the necessary contexts of political retaliation, crony enrichment and an attack on the rule of law and the Constitution. The non-stop pace of controversial actions from the White House makes it hard for media and citizens to keep up, but the alarms are audible to anyone listening.

This work needs to continue. But it will not be enough.

The most important story facing the press is just now unfolding: Documenting the impact that presidential actions and policies will have on the lives of people, especially (but not exclusively) groups that are targeted and vulnerable. Like this story. And this one. This crucial reporting must not be done with some sort of artificial, 50-50 balance of good and bad because that’s not going to be the reality.

Nor can it be done to maximum effect through statistics, political opponent sound bites and experts expounding. It means, instead, talking to real people who will lay bare the facts and emotions of their lives at the moment. It should be the most powerful storytelling of the next few years.

The obligation to show consequences, which will demand a commitment over time, belongs not just to national news organizations. Local ones that know their communities and citizens are better positioned to pound the pavement and find the impacts.

All big stories like this have endless angles, of course. Here’s another one the media should not shy away from: the voter remorse angle. It may seem pointless and even antagonistic to ask for self-reflection from Trump voters who don’t like what they’ve seen this time around or, more significantly, discover that their lives got worse. Not easy to admit you got snookered. And they might not even believe that they were.

But remorse, or lack of it, remains a legitimate news angle going forward, with big implications for the election process, for how the news media should play their role, and for understanding the way many Americans think.

How Trump might cripple the news media. Good luck, everyone.

photo illustration by Peggy and Marco Lachmann-Anke

After Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016, news organizations benefitted from a “Trump bump” in ratings and page views. The aftermath since November, however, has been the opposite. Metrics for media in the non-sycophant category have showed a Trump slump.

That trend might continue, because if the returning president accomplishes even some of the anti-media measures he has talked about, there could be a whole lot less journalism worth paying attention to.

Below are many of the ways that Trump might make it harder for the press to do its job during his second administration. All of these either have precedent from the first administration or represent more recent public statements made by Trump, cabinet nominees or advisers. Some are part of Project 2025. It’s a non-innovative list from the authoritarian handbook used throughout time and the world.

It would be a mistake to dismiss any of these potential actions as mere annoyances. They would translate into obstacles to effective journalism. Let’s also acknowledge that many groups have more to fear during the next four years than the news media. But the victimization of those groups will be made easier by a hampered press.

Anyone who believes the mainstream media as a group deserves retribution for failures and bias should remember, as they read this list, that the best ways to accomplish that are audience protests and denial of patronage, not government interference.

• Reduce government funding for public media (NPR, PBS and radio and TV stations affiliated with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting). The independence of Voice of America broadcasts stands at risk, too.

• Threaten the broadcast licenses of affiliates of over-air TV networks.

• Arrange for wealthy political supporters to buy media properties.

• Meddle with mergers and acquisitions involving news companies he doesn’t like. MSNBC and CNN might get sold or merged during the term, for examples.

• Change the tax status of nonprofit news organizations that report on terrorism (or on any topic that displeases the administration).

• Order executive branch departments to manipulate or refuse to disclose government data. And to stonewall Freedom of Information requests.

• Appoint judges who will re-interpret decades of libel law.

• Instruct the Justice Department to seize reporter phone and email records in an attempt to identify confidential sources and discourage government employees from becoming such sources. Also, pressure Congress not to pass a federal shield law that protects news sources and journalist records.

• Prosecute journalists on completely bogus grounds.

• Launch similarly bogus lawsuits intended to harass or intimidate news organizations, requiring them at minimum to waste time and money. Expect like-minded public figures to copycat.

• Allocate or revoke White House press credentials based on favorable/unfavorable coverage.

• Equally insidious as these tangible actions, Trump will certainly continue his tiresome tropes that the news media report “fake news” and are “the enemy of the people.” At its worst, this rhetoric subjects journalists to verbal and physical threatss as they do their jobs in public. At minimum, this is alarmingly effective propaganda that he and supporters peddle so that when a negative story gets published, fewer people will believe it. Trump has admitted as much.

This is quite the frightening list. But the news media have ways to resist, and the reputable ones will want to. That’ll be easier if news consumers help.

If you can afford it, buy a subscription or donate to any local, regional or national outlet that you think is doing a good job. It need not be a big, well-known organization. Even a small amount helps, because proof of grassroots support is often a prerequisite for big grants from national foundations.

Beyond money, there’s value in publicly expressing objections to anti-media actions, preferably before they happen. Do it on social media or, better yet, contact elected representatives. Let them know you’re paying attention and it matters to you.

Finally, we need some better media literacy. While not dismissing journalism’s flaws and the need to do better, it’s crucial that readers and viewers figure out the good news sources from the bad ones, and when faced with critical but credibly reported stories, believe them. And persuade the neighbors to believe them, too.

I’d advocate for this whether the government was in the hands of a crazed authoritarian or a left-wing extremist. Believe those stories. Remember them. Make them part of the democratic process of government accountability. The news media are positioned to help that happen – that is, if they aren’t getting throttled by the heavy hand of an administration that knows it needs to corrupt the process.

“My main concern is that local politicians will take their cue from Trump and harass us.”

— Norine Dworkin, editor of VoxPopuli in Orange County, Florida, to the New York Times, Jan. 13, 2025

Do your journalism professors know anything about real newsrooms?

Image by Gerd Altmann

As a new semester begins, I say again that college students do not know enough about the credentials of the professors they’re paying for. Do the profs truly know what they’re teaching?

This question is prompted by a monster-long Facebook thread I saw a few months ago that mostly excoriated journalism schools for having too many professors with minimal or no real experience in the field. “Academics who’ve never worked in a newsroom have no clue what is required to succeed in the field,” one typical comment said. (The thread appeared in a private group for former journalism professionals so the dominant viewpoint isn’t surprising.)

When I began work toward a graduate degree after more than three decades in the business, I remember thinking, “Don’t laugh out loud at the oblivious things my professors say.” Well, guess what. I never had a reason to. In fact, before too long, I was thinking, “Dang, that’s exactly right.” Then, “Dang, that’s really interesting. I didn’t know that.” And then, “Dang, that theory explains everything I did for 30 years.”

I certainly won’t pretend that every teacher in every journalism program is up to speed on the realities and current practices of the business. But most are, and most do have at least some real-world experience even if only for a few years early in their careers.

Conscientious professors make constant efforts to stay abreast, with many ways to do so:

• Freelance work on the side.

• Staying in contact with current pros.

• Guest speakers (and God bless every guest speaker everywhere).

• Joining professional associations.

• Professional development workshops.

• A ton of reading (academic articles, media watchdog articles and the vast production of daily journalism itself).

It’s also worth remembering that with journalism changing so rapidly, even a long resume in the field is no guarantee of an up-to-date teacher.

There are some reasons it’s hard for J-schools to get longtime veterans. The main accrediting agency for journalism says it wants “a balance of academic and professional credentials” among the faculty but the reality is that many small and medium journalism departments hire only professors with a PhD. Although I know at least a half dozen veterans who changed careers and impressively earned doctorates, that’s a hard-to-find combination.

Larger departments have more flexibility, as they can hire instructors with only master’s degrees and some universities allow adjuncts with only a bachelor’s degree. A lot of professional experience gets shared in the classroom because of these teachers.

As important as that is, journalism schools and departments also seek credentials that will fulfill other aspects of their mission. In many cases, academic research into journalism and the resulting publications are considered more important than preparing students for jobs. It may be good that researchers haven’t worked in the field because that detachment allows them to question industry routines and spot innovative solutions to problems.

Research faculty also teach and generally they excel at the “conceptual” courses that any good J-school ought to offer – media effects, theory and ethics, for examples. A journalism major’s education comes from a variety of classes with different missions and that require different backgrounds among professors.

 The smartest comment in that long Facebook ranting and raving I saw came from a journalism professor at Kent State named John Kroll. More important to a journalism student’s success than a professor’s resume, he pointed out, is teaching ability. “And that quality isn’t guaranteed either by a Ph.D. or dozens of years in a newsroom.”

December sports ritual: New coaches, media figure each other out

Bill Belichick was friendly with the North Carolina media, at least on Day 1 (UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA ATHLETICS PHOTO)

Watch for a spectacular culture clash between the University of North Carolina’s new head football coach, the famously media-unfriendly Bill Belichick, and the UNC sports media, including student reporters from one of the nation’s best journalism programs. Maybe Belichick’s brief time working in the media this year will change him, but I doubt it.

Part of the annual December “coaching carousel” in college football is figuring out what media relations will be like. On one side, sports information directors let their new coaches know who the favored and disfavored reporters on the beat are. On the other side, beat reporters are talking to beat reporters from wherever the new coach came to assess the friendliness/hostility level they can expect.

Of interest are the coach’s media access policies* – to the coach, to assistants and players, to practice. These are rooted in the coach’s personality, including how paranoid he is, and in his view of the media’s role. Some see the press as irrelevant and annoying, perhaps even as an uncontrollable threat to disrupt the program. Others see it as a good way to communicate with fans, donors, recruits and even their own players. Some like the personal reputation they can build, too.

Sometimes things get out of hand. Last year, in his first year, University of Colorado football coach Deion Sanders called out Colorado sports writers for insufficient positivity about him and the team. I think even Deion knows that’s not their job. Earlier this year, Sanders put out a public statement that he would no longer answer questions from a Denver Post columnist because of “personal attacks” on him. He could have just done that quietly, but the statement served the real purposes of an attempted flaunt of power and of bringing attention to himself.

Last year, USC football coach Lincoln Riley took away a writer’s access to the team for two weeks because the writer reported on a conversation between two players while in an approved media area and also asked a followup question after a press conference had concluded. How dare that reporter engage in basic journalism. Alabama Media Group’s Kevin Scarbinsky called it “a wild, thin-skinned overreaction.”

No equivalent cases happened during Nick Saban’s time at Alabama that I know of, but he certainly acted the ruffian toward the local and state reporters. I wondered if things got any better in Kalen DeBoer’s first year this year. A couple of the UA beat journalists said yes. Much.

In policy, DeBoer differs from Saban in that coordinators and assistant coaches are available weekly rather than off limits during the regular season, according to Nick Kelly of AL.com. And it’s now possible to interview freshmen, which turns out to be a big deal because of the newsworthiness of first-year players Ryan Williams and Zabien Brown. There’s also more media viewing allowed during fall camp.

Unlike Saban, DeBoer is willing to do one-on-one interviews “with pretty much anyone who requests one,” Katie Windham of BamaCentral wrote in an email. “With Saban it was pretty much ESPN or no one.” Reporters appreciate one-on-one interviews as chances to do distinctive work in a highly competitive market where it’s often hard to break from the pack.

Kalen DeBoer's media rules differ greatly from Nick Saban's. (UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA ATHLETICS PHOTO)

In one regard, Windham pointed out, Saban was more accessible because he did two press conferences per week while DeBoer does one. Those press conferences have changed dramatically, Kelly said.

“Any time Saban spoke, a rant was possible,” Kelly wrote in an email. “And you didn't know if your question was going to be the one to set him off. That's not the case with DeBoer. We have yet to get a rant from DeBoer, and I'm not sure we ever will. That's not his style. He's pretty even keel.”

Windham agrees. “I honestly can't even remember a time that he's been visibly angry with a question. If he doesn't like something that was asked, he'll say some words, but not really answer the question. I think DeBoer sees more value in the local media than Saban did and actually wants to help.”   

Yes, some coaches do want to help. And some do not. It makes December job changes impactful not just for fans but also for the reporters whose ability to do their jobs might go way up or, unfortunately, way down.

*I think athletics directors should set a consistent media policy for all their sports but that’ll never happen.

Good reasons for journalists to leave X -- and to stay

IMAGE BY ENRIQUE FROM PIXABAY

The journalists who have departed from X/Twitter since owner Elon Musk corrupted his social media platform and emerged as a leader of MAGA politics have been rightly unkind in their assessments. Some examples:

• Magazine/newsletter writer James Fallows (several hundred thousand X followers): “Elon Musk has made it a vehicle of propaganda, hatred, and lies.”

• Sports book/newsletter author Jeff Pearlman (85,000 followers): “Uniquely ugly and gross and cruel … an unambiguously anti-truth platform.”

• The Guardian (a whole news organization): “X is a toxic media platform.”

All true. But a question remains: Why aren’t more journalists and newsrooms doing this? The majority aren’t. It essentially comes down to how one weighs the value of a righteous stance against a lot of practical considerations that make remaining on X logical.

Some journalist dissatisfaction with X predates Musk’s purchase in 2022. One journalist wrote that she tried to tough it out “while Twitter’s endemic racist, sexist and transphobic harassment problems grew increasingly more sophisticated and organized.” She signed out in 2017.

Under Musk, X has gotten worse. After he eviscerated content moderation, X now welcomes and amplifies political and demographic hatred, along with blatant disinformation, a lot of it pumped by Musk himself. It has restored users banned by previous ownership, and the algorithm downplays progressive viewpoints. Musk was clearly insincere, if not lying, when he said in April 2022: “For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally.”

All of this, along with Musk going more public as a funder and adviser of Donald Trump, has prompted a notable exodus of individuals, including some journalists, to other social media sites such as Threads, Mastodon and Bluesky, which I joined last week while still staying on X*.

X has lost an average of 14% of its daily users every month since Musk bought it. In the 24 hours after the presidential election, its daily user count dropped from 162 million to 157 million. Meanwhile, Bluesky gained 6 million total users since the election, giving it 20 million. Threads** said it has been adding 1 million signups per day for three months.

Despite the shift, you can still find most individual reporters and news outlets on X. The reasons generally relate to their ability to do their jobs and to the promotional benefits.

Reporters find X (and other social media platforms) useful in newsgathering. It’s a common way to gain story ideas, find people to interview, locate witnesses and visuals when news breaks, and assess public reaction to events. And occasionally, prominent figures who are otherwise inaccessible post newsworthy statements.

It’s also effective in getting more eyes on a journalist’s good work. It may seem like the whole world is on X. The reality is that X’s reach has never exceeded 25% of the U.S. adult population. But among the users of X are many influential individuals that journalists want to reach – decision makers, citizen activists, academics, other journalists. They hope to maximize the impact of their work, along with wanting to boost the reputation and relevance of themselves and their organizations. Nothing wrong with that.

AL.com, for one, remains on X. It evaluated circumstances after Musk’s purchase but didn’t see a mass departure of users. Director of Audience Katie Brumbeloe wrote in an email: “Ultimately, we decided we would not leave Twitter/X because we still have a large audience there and we need to continue to have a presence there, sharing our work and listening to and engaging with audiences there.” The newsroom’s political, investigative and sports stories get substantial reach and engagement on X, she said.

AL.com, which does not require its writers to post on any particular social media platform, recently started re-posting work on Bluesky “after taking a break over the summer when we were getting no engagement at all,” Brumbeloe said. It’s “experimenting” with both Bluesky and Threads.

Beyond the visibility, there’s also a good argument that journalists need to stay on X and inject as much truth as they can into the Xosphere, even if it feels like typing in a typhoon of tripe. To go elsewhere seems like a win for Musk and a loss for X users who don’t live permanently in an echo chamber.

Perhaps someday a different social media platform can become a major, credible, safe forum for political discussion that bumps X to the fringe. Part of accomplishing that would have to be a long list of newsrooms willing to make a difficult decision.

*I feel obligated to explain why I remain on X, which I use mostly to post links to this blog. The blog is primarily for my students (present and past) and they haven’t moved from X to Threads, Mastodon or Bluesky (I know because I searched). I also take some justification in that my small-community blog discussions do not attract mean and crazy people. I realize that all activity benefits the platform, but I do not subscribe to any of X’s paid services.

 **Threads, owned by Facebook, continues to grow its user count but it de-emphasizes posts about political issues. It has therefore opened a door for Bluesky, a pretty big blunder.

How the news media helped Trump to win

photo illustration by gerd altmann

Let’s acknowledge immediately that broader forces than the news media brought about the result of the presidential election. But the victory of a candidate whose demerits were repeatedly spotlighted by responsible news organizations demands retrospection.

So I asked some smart people to assess the campaign coverage by the mainstream media –national print/online outlets and the major TV/cable networks – and to be any combination of complimentary or critical.

Pretty much, it was the latter. And fundamental concerns, too. Donald Trump didn’t win because The New York Times wrote too many euphemistic headlines. It goes deeper than that. 

Dr. Cynthia Peacock, co-director of the Office of Politics, Communication and Media (OPCaM) at the University of Alabama, wrote in an email that the seeming benefit of having more sources of news than ever before – from news media and social media – actually is “fertile ground for highly partisan and misleading information.” That has the unfortunate consequence that different segments of the public make decisions based on different sets of facts, which “sets us up to fail” at the basic requirement of democracy to talk to each other. 

“When Democrats who prefer MSNBC and Republicans who faithfully tune in to Fox News come together, they might as well be speaking different languages,” she said. “The news they consume has presented them not only with different issues but completely different ‘facts’ regarding those issues. No wonder we can’t fathom how the other side could make the decisions they do – we’re living with differing ideas about the nature of reality.”

(I will add my view that this problem is not equally balanced. The partisan outlets on the political right are far more guilty of going beyond presentation of selective, favorable facts to the promotion of falsehoods.)

My department colleague Dr. A.J. Bauer, another OPCaM researcher, believes the news media have become too focused on misinformation and disinformation (false information spread to intentionally deceive). “The commitments to fact checking, to publicizing and exposing lies and false statements, only further circulated those ideas — creating the epistemological (knowledge) crisis it aimed to solve,” he wrote in an email. 

That emphasis, he said, appeals to the “journalistic ego” and reinforces a norm of objectivity that “has always been flawed.” 

“Its presumption that Trump supporters are dupes or operating in an alternative reality has only made it more difficult to understand the Republican Party’s ongoing salience. Right-wing folks didn’t share AI images of Trump wading in hurricane flood waters last month because they were tricked into believing they were real. They did it because they felt those images reflected a deeper truth. They voted based on that truth, while reporters played pedantry.” 

 What’s necessary, he concluded, is for journalists and researchers to pay less attention to disinformation and more attention to “why (Trump supporters) believe what they do.” 

Dr. M. Clay Carey, a professor in the Department of Communication and Media at Samford University, sees “frequent disconnects between people who practice journalism and those who consume or avoid the news.” Citing an article published Wednesday by the Nieman Lab journalism website, he noted that journalists believe readers want media independence and traditional news values. Meanwhile, readers say they actually want the press to offer “empathy and a genuine desire to listen and understand” them. The result of this divide is “distrust and cynicism,” he wrote.

He offered actionable advice for newsrooms. “Journalistic habits of focusing on political extremes and poll-based coverage centered on winners and losers might give way to reporting centered on the challenges our communities face and how government might tackle those challenges. People in those communities might become more important parts of those conversations. Too often, they are shouldered out by pundits, pollsters, and political operatives.” 

Clearly, the news media have some rethinking to do about how they can become more trusted and influential (although I’m sure Fox has no interest in that). I scoffed, however, at the Republicans on social media who declared that Trump’s win had rendered the mainstream press irrelevant. Journalism that is respected plays a vital role in better civics. With democracy under threat, the mainstream press has never been more relevant. That’s why – pronto – it needs to figure out what to do differently.