Amid grief over Charlie Kirk, two networks play politics

In the early moments after Charlie Kirk’s death, MSNBC commentator Matthew Dowd cautioned against premature conclusions by suggesting the shooting could have been a supporter’s gun going off in celebration.

That was a stupid remark. But it’s not what got him fired.

Here’s what did: Asked by the show’s host to discuss the political environment that could lead to such violence, Dowd called Kirk “divisive” and said: “…Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place.”

Some right-wing media, such as The Daily Caller, interpreted that as “Charlie Kirk deserved to die.” That sentiment is a fireable offense, but that’s not what I took from those words. It’s also a fireable offense to suggest that assassination would be a rational response by an angry but otherwise rational person to Kirk’s politics. But that wasn’t the takeaway, either. I read Dowd’s words as saying that hatred spewed toward political opponents or selected demographic groups increases the likelihood that a crazy person would wrongly decide violence is justified, and I don’t see any inaccuracies there. Dowd may have been talking only about the potential reaction to views as extremely rightward as Kirk’s, but I think it applies on both ends of the ideological spectrum.

Yes, it’s hard to argue for my interpretation when both MSNBC and Dowd himself publicly apologized. But I suspect MSNBC, whose president called the comments “inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable,” didn’t want to open itself up to charges of coldheartedness (or worse) while so many people were deep in grief. Or to accusations that the network helped to create the climate in which such a tragedy could occur. (Dowd on Friday ripped the network for caving in to a “right-wing media mob.”)

Meanwhile, over in the detestable Fox News opinion division, primetime talk show host Jesse Watters recklessly fired off cannons. “They are at war with us!” he declared before Kirk’s killer was even known. The “us vs. them” narrative is the go-to move for many right-wing talking heads, although they rarely bother to say who “they” is. Apparently all the political progressives in the U.S. got together in Bryant-Denny Stadium and voted to begin executing political enemies.

Certainly, strident liberal voices in the news media have labeled MAGA leaders as fascist and dangerous and have dialed up the thermostat. But the fear-generating language emanating from Fox opinion programs about “leftist radicals” is more routine, more alarming and has less basis in reality. And you know management is all on board*.

Neither Fox News nor MSNBC alone is going radicalize a viewer to the point of murder. It takes dark corners of social media and fringe, extremist publications, too. But hostility on TV isn’t good for the deteriorating civic conversation in the country today.

*On Wednesday, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade suggested fixing the problem of homeless people by “involuntary lethal injection.” Earlier today, four days later, he publicly apologized. He still has his job.

Student sports writers should call them as they see them

photo illustration created with chatgpt

Another college football coach publicly chastised another sports writer after a game Saturday, but this one was bizarre.

Missouri head coach Eli Drinkwitz took offense that a student beat reporter for the Columbia Missourian had picked Kansas to win the “Border War,” which it didn’t. A Mizzou senior player took him to task, too. “Stop cheering for KU,” the player said to the reporter at the post-game press conference. “You’re a Missouri Tiger.”

No, guys, that’s not how it works.

Student journalists are not cheerleaders for the home team. (Neither are the pros, though I’ve always found it amusing that, in years Alabama and Auburn have both been at least somewhat competitive, Tide beat writers usually pick UA and Tiger beat writers usually pick AU in the Iron Bowl. I attribute this to familiarity bias, but it could be something else.)

Sam Prestipino, the Crimson White sports editor who writes the weekly “Prestipino’s Picks,” told me by email: “I think there's definitely a little bit of pressure to pick UA as a student here. It feels like picking Alabama to win every week is somewhat expected just because I am supposed to be a ‘fan’ of the team because I go to school at UA.”

But he doesn’t always pick Alabama. Last fall he went with Tennessee over Alabama (he was right) and Georgia over Alabama (he was wrong). He did not get much pushback on campus for either prediction, he said.

He grew up in North Carolina and was raised as a Duke football fan. “This makes it a little bit easier for me to be impartial and helps me pick a team based more on my brain than my heart.”

Prestipino makes his predictions after watching film of both teams, reading the picks of professional sports writers and checking historical trends in the rivalry.

The Missouri reporter, showing some honesty and ethics but also some defensiveness, posted on X that he looks forward to being able to start cheering for Missouri after he graduates. He also offered “my apologies” for his prediction.

Writers and game pickers are fair targets, but I don’t believe any sports writer needs to apologize for a wrong forecast that was based on research and done in good faith (as opposed to just trying to draw attention and controversy.) Prestipino looks at the apology somewhat more favorably.

“I commend the reporter for apologizing. He really didn't need to apologize, but I think he showed a lot of emotional maturity in taking the high road.”

The CW sports editor said he wasn’t surprised by Saturday’s episode in Columbia because Drinkwitz is “somewhat known to say some out-there types of things when addressing the media.” But he’d be “shocked” by a similar occurrence at an Alabama football press conference.

A big underlying factor here, I think, is that many people on a campus – fans, athletes, coaches – can’t imagine that a student would surrender one of the great joys of college life: rooting for their school. That spirit no doubt remains in their hearts, but subordinating it to their work is exactly what students who are sports journalists must do.

Guest post: Three unusual things I did to boost learning in my class

This is a guest post by son Sam, assistant professor of economics at the University of Houston. He explains how he taught his 2025 summer class differently from how his father and most professors teach their classes. That class was some evidence that these ideas work, he says.

photo by nikolay georgiev. (generic photo, not sam’s classroom)

First, ban phones and laptops. I thought a no-screens policy would be met with great resistance and require vigilant enforcement. It was not, and it did not. Here’s a quote from the course evaluations, which are submitted anonymously after the course ends: “Limiting of phones and screen time during class allowed me to stay focused on the lecture during class.” Allowed. Not helped, allowed. As policymakers all over the country are finally admitting, screens are a barrier to learning. Remove the barrier.

Second, keep everything within the confines of class time. That’s 30 hours of instruction. You can get a pilot’s license in 40. It’s a lot of time. In particular, stop giving homework. Group assignments done in class can take its place. They build camaraderie and, with the rise of the homework robots, could even mitigate climate change. Similarly, stop assigning out-of-class readings. If they're really as important as is always insisted, read them together. Even if a lesson or two must be cut, consider that students will be in better spirits for everything that remains when they don’t stay up late, scrubbing traces of robot from their homework and skimming passages they know will be explained.

Third, get rid of the exams. Or rather, write a test, then cut it up and paste the pieces right into the lecture slides, right after the material you’re testing. Use “clickers” and have students ring in during the lecture — for credit. Students will know how they’re doing in real time, and thus so will the professor. It’s the same questions, but less stress and more tailored instruction, and it even leaves the impression that there was no examination. From the evaluations: “I feel like we assume since we’re not going to get tested, we don’t need to properly learn material, but it had the opposite effect on me. It took the pressure off, and I just found myself paying attention and learning simply because I wanted to.”

I didn’t make them do a single homework assignment. I didn’t make them read a single word on their own. I didn’t make them take a single formal exam or even a quiz. And yet, from the evaluations: “He made me learn.”

Photography failures escalate Gaza propaganda

BILD PHOTO OF A PALESTINIAN PHOTOGRAPHER IN GAZA. lack of food is real for many civilians, but here they are BEGGING to THE CAMERA.

The propaganda part of the Gaza war is being fought largely with photos. Rhetoric is a lot of it, too, but photos pack more of a wallop.

A July 24 New York Times story about civilian starvation highlighted a photo of an emaciated 18-month-old Palestinian child. After complaints and more reporting, The Times added an editor’s note several days later saying that the child had pre-existing health conditions that contributed to his appearance. Critics also noted that his healthier older brother was standing nearby but not included in the photo.

The editor’s note sparked even more outrage from people who thought the photo choice was intended to put false blame on Israel. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he was (absurdly) considering suing The Times for defamation and declared (also absurdly) that “there is no starvation in Gaza.”

On Tuesday, the right-wing German newspaper Bild reported that a Palestinian professional photographer had, without disclosure, staged powerful photos of a crowd of Gazans holding empty bowls and pleading for food. They were begging at him, not at someone actually distributing food. The argument could be made that he was simply recreating scenes that are happening daily, but it is nonetheless a violation of news photography ethics. After the Bild story, several news outlets around the world stopped using the photographer’s work.

Time magazine had to defend its similar Aug. 1 cover photo by a different Palestinian photographer. The magazine did not explicitly say the photo wasn’t staged.

“With Hamas controlling nearly all media in Gaza, these photographers aren’t reporting, they’re producing propaganda,” the Israeli Foreign Ministry posted on X.

Hamas’ release of videos of a skeletal Israeli hostage in a tunnel a week ago was propaganda, too. They staged him digging his own grave, and juxtaposed shots of starving Gaza children, but there was nothing staged about the hostage’s frailty.

SCREENSHOT OF A SOCIAL MEDIA VIDEO POSTED BY THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT.

It goes the other way, as well. In July, for instance, Israel Defense Forces published photos of some members of Hamas eating a bountiful meal in a tunnel. No one has debunked those images. Social media accounts of the Israeli government show healthy Gazans availing themselves of all kinds of food. The scenes may be real, but they are not representative. At all. 

Propaganda obscures truth. Reliable visual journalism reveals truth. But in Gaza, truth has been hard to come by. How many people are starving? Why isn’t food reaching them? Propaganda has helped to produce wildly divergent* views. That’s one reason many global news organizations have intensified their demand that Israel allow foreign news media into Gaza. That wouldn’t be bias-proof, of course. But relying mostly on local Gaza journalists, who themselves face hunger and life-threatening danger, makes it harder to know the realities.

---

* I consider the first linked story more credible than the second one.

If interested, here’s a March 2024 blog post on the related issue of digital photo manipulation.

Guess what, sports-talk bros, the rules apply to you too

I’m not sure but I think Pat mcAfee is saying, “I screwed up how?”

Pat McAfee, the loud, annoying, inarticulate and hugely popular sports talk show host on ESPN and YouTube, publicly apologized Wednesday for spreading a false internet rumor about the sex life of an 18-year-old female student at Ole Miss by saying: “I’m very thankful that (the family) gave me the opportunity to tell them how sorry I was.”

Translation: “I’m very thankful that the family didn’t sue me for all I’m worth.”

In his first mention of the hoax in February, he didn’t say the woman’s name. For purposes of libel, though, that doesn’t matter because the name was already widely known. He didn’t declare the story true, only that it was spreading all over social media. Again, doesn’t matter because if you repeat a libel, you’re responsible for it – and McAfee exponentially increased awareness of it.

Legalities aside, why would anyone think it’s OK to do this? The woman, who talked publicly about how the rumor and McAfee’s publicity destroyed her life, had to switch to online classes, moved into emergency housing, and got harassing and threatening phone messages. “You’re ruining my life by talking about it on your show for nothing but attention, but here I am staying up until 5 in the morning, every night, throwing up, not eating because I’m so anxious about what’s going to happen for the rest of my life,” she told The Athletic in April.

Several other sports show hosts with less reach than McAfee – two Barstool commentators on social media and a St. Louis radio host – thought it was fine to have some fun mocking the woman. They apologized, too, and far sooner than the five months it took McAfee. (I presume negotiation to avoid a lawsuit against ESPN was the reason.)

This internet gossip wasn’t even about sports, but some sports commentators will say anything for attention, without thinking it through. And for a few, disrespecting women is part of the act. Barstool employs some like that. McAfee has also had to apologize for comments about Caitlin Clark.

The potential benefits of ex-athletes like McAfee getting a second career in media are the name recognition and the inside knowledge. But it all goes wrong if they decide, like McAfee, that a lightning-rod personality is all that’s required of them. That includes not bothering to learn the basics of the business. And if that personality morphs into the tiresome shtick of hyper bro culture – by an ex-athlete or anyone in sports talk – then it can get really ugly.

Stop the steal (journalism version)

ILLUSTRATION BY HENNING

A University of Alabama football fan went viral when national TV showed him wearing a crimson t-shirt amid a vast Penn State whiteout during the Nittany Lions’ home game against Auburn in September 2021. It was a story begging to be told. So Ryan Phillips did.

The editor of the local news website Patch Tuscaloosa tracked the man down. It wasn’t easy. But he got the story. Less than 24 hours later, a journalist at an Alabama TV station “pretty much stole my entire story without giving credit,” Phillips said.

Laura Testino knows similar frustration. When she reported for the education website  Chalkbeat Tennessee, she chased down a high-profile scoop in November 2023 about Memphis educators limiting what the authors of a Pulitzer-winning biography on George Floyd could say about systemic racism to students at a predominantly Black local high school. A national media organization later reported on the controversy.

“My story was only credited for the apparent one comment this (national) reporter could not solicit on her own. I (and Chalkbeat) didn’t receive credit for first reporting the story, even though the entire report rehashed all of the sources and information I had originally compiled,” said Testino, now a reporter for the Daily Memphian.

Journalistic larceny is actually legal if it falls within the subjective guidelines of “fair use.” The harder question is what represents ethical vs. unethical use of another news organization’s good work. It’s a relevant question, too, because with today’s smaller newsrooms, the need to constantly post new content online, and yes, some occasional laziness, re-use of the work of others is common.

There are different kinds of re-use. Taking published stuff – even if it’s just pieces – with no credit to the original outlet and no link to the original story is reprehensible. “While legally you may end up in jail for grand theft auto but not for grand theft news story, there’s no difference between the two ethically,” said my UA journalism department colleague Dr. Chris Roberts, who is also director of the Office of Research in Media Integrity. “It’s wrong to take something that you didn’t pay for without permission.”

The examples above, however, are not that. In many cases, Outlet A discovers a story done by Outlet B and decides to do its own reporting, which probably includes talking to some of the same sources that Outlet B used. What’s Outlet A’s obligation in that case?

“This has been a real problem for generations, as we know that most national news stories about local things come from local sources,” Roberts wrote in an email. “If you’re re-reporting a story you first found elsewhere, a ‘this was originally reported by’ sentence seems appropriate.”

from a re-reported washington post story in july. readers might not care, but sentences like the last one, which included a link, fulfill an ethical obligation.

______________________________________________________________________________

That does happen. Roberts pointed out that the Washington Post, for instance, has staff writers who re-report stories published elsewhere, and they do cite the original publication. Based on my reading over the years, I think sports journalists generally have adopted the practice of crediting whoever got a scoop first, even if they’ve confirmed the scoop on their own. “It’s just the classy thing to do,” Roberts said.

Phillips said bigger organizations have taken a story idea from his site without giving credit in their version several times. “They got more traffic, it felt cheap and just left me feeling like my work didn’t matter.”

I see journalists – not just pros but student journalists, too – express similar irritation on social media with some regularity, and it’s really not pointless bellyaching. Credit and linking matter. They are a reward for good, hard-working and usually local writers who don’t get a lot of morale lifts in this business. More significantly, though, wider acknowledgement boosts the reputation of the originating writer and their organization, which in turn means more readership and a greater likelihood that a source with a great story tip down the road is going to pick them to tell it to.

 “It should be obvious to anyone observing journalism right now that we should all be pushing toward credit and collaboration, rather than brute competition,” Testino said. “Our industry is too short on original reporting, compared to aggregation or commentary, to not be doing this.”

Government specialty: Lying about war

EDITED ILLUSTRATION (ORIGINAL BY MOHAMED HASSAN)

Iran was close to having a nuclear bomb. Or not. Either way, U.S. strikes obliterated those facilities. Or not.

War and military actions of other sorts have always been ripe for exaggeration and blatant lying by U.S. governments, whether it’s in manufacturing a justification for a war or in misrepresenting a war’s degree of success.

The deceit goes beyond the customary spinning and slanting we hear from government leaders and spokespeople during discussions of other topics. That’s because wars are so costly and consequential, in multiple ways, that administrations must convince the public that there exists an urgent necessity beyond a self-interested political motivation. And once engaged, success is always more elusive than it seemed in the Situation Room, but a government isn’t going to tell the public that all those sacrifices are being made for a losing cause.

Lying about war has been happening forever. The role of the press is to reveal the lies, if not immediately then with the benefit of time.

For many current journalists and much of the public, the lesson to distrust the government came from the Vietnam War. The Johnson Administration was allowed to escalate the war because it lied to Congress about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Years of deception about U.S. conduct in Vietnam by multiple administrations got famously exposed by The New York Times with its publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

The Washington Post’s remarkable Afghanistan Papers in 2019 showed the U.S. government, despite its public statements, knew of its many mistakes and the unwinnable nature of that war.

The George W. Bush administration made false claims to Congress and the public that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and ties to the al-Qaeda terrorist group. The start of the Iraq War in 2003 was not a great moment for the press.

Short of full-fledged war, isolated military strikes have caused unintended harm that officials acknowledged belatedly or never.

Figuring out the truth about military actions isn’t easy. Reporters usually can’t witness events because they occur in places that are distant, hostile or dangerous. Leaks are hard to come by.

But cutting through the propaganda is possible. It starts with wanting to. There’s considerable evidence over the years that the national mainstream media – apology for the blanket statement – are pro-war. War certainly brings an audience. But that shouldn’t change the assignment.

Journalists need to use a variety of tools: Contacts in other countries, anonymity for sources, verified social media posts, photo/video forensics, embedding with units, and cautious language. Above all, they need skepticism about what they’re hearing from the podium, especially during the current administration. That means reporting aggressively, ignoring the inevitable slams of insufficient patriotism, and constantly asking the most important question: “What’s your evidence?”

The many problems with media coverage of protests

The organizer of a local protest asked the big newspaper in town if it planned to cover the event. The answer was no. The organizer paused. “Then maybe we won’t do it.”

I heard that anecdote at some point in my journalism career, and though I can’t prove it actually happened, it does make a point. Protesters want publicity.

“Getting media attention is fundamental,” says the website for the “No Kings” protests scheduled for Saturday around the nation, including multiple locations in Alabama.

The second Trump administration has spawned a string of public political protests – against immigration enforcement tactics, against Elon Musk and Tesla, the “Stand Up For Science” rallies in March and the “Hands Off” protests in April. The Gaza war has prompted many, as well.

Some movements – Black Lives Matter, for instance – feel hostility toward Big Media, which they see as part of the establishment they’re fighting against. But more commonly, national news organizations get criticized for insufficient volume and prominence of protest coverage. That was especially the case with Hands Off.

For some disreputable newsrooms, coverage decisions are influenced by their own political bias. In some other cases, coverage is influenced by editors’ desire not to appear manipulated by publicity seekers. But in general, decisions on scope of protest coverage come down to the importance of the cause and how many people show up.

News media have ways to estimate crowds but that vital measurement of newsworthiness inevitably gets distorted (in opposite directions) by both organizers and protest targets. Even accurately assessed turnout can get interpreted differently. It didn’t go over well with some media critics when the public editor of NPR pointed out that the approximate 3 million people who attended Hands Off rallies meant that “statistically, most news consumers are not protesting.” (It takes a lot of logistical commitment and these days even some courage to attend a public protest, so I advise against a strict numerical proportionality test. Absence does not mean indifference.)

Another complaint, usually from only the side of the target, is that reporters fail to disclose the true nature of protesters. This is bogus. Protesters are not Antifa. They are not paid actors.

the NEW YORK TIMES’ PAGE 1A COVERAGE OF APRIL’S hands off rallies CONSISTED OF a bottom-of-the-page photo tease to more coverage inside.

The most substantial problem with protest coverage in general is that the press prefers to emphasize conflicts between protesters and law enforcement as well as acts of protest violence, at the expense of explaining and fact checking the issues that prompted the protest. “Baked-in news practices cover only the worst moments of protests and neglect telling people what protesters are asking for,” according to a June 2024 Scientific American article by Douglas M. McLeod, a journalism professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The article, which cites numerous research studies of left-wing and right-wing social protests on a variety of issues, also says that in general, media coverage “privileg(es) officialdom’s views of the protests” and “minimizes the effectiveness” of the protests.

News organizations can be forgiven for the focus on the response of government to the current immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles, as the Trump administration’s effort to manufacture authoritarian powers stands hand in hand with the treatment of immigrants as national alarms that the media must cover exhaustively.

To do this fairly requires another task on which news reports often fail: the accurate portrayal of the extent of protest violence. LA is not on fire. “The idea that Trump needed to put soldiers on the streets of the city because riots were spinning out of control is pure fantasy,” New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote Monday.

Citing research from a two-week period in 2024, McLeod wrote that 97% of Gaza war protests on U.S. college campuses were peaceful. But “news coverage tends to ignore peaceful protests.” Protest violence against people or property usually arises from uncontrolled anger over an issue or from provocation by law enforcement. Let’s hope that no protester decides to get violent because they thought it was the only way to get media attention.

Students, pro writers going through a bad spell

Photo by Steve Buissinne

The past three winning words in the annual Scripps National Spelling Bee, which begins today for the 100th time, were “abseil,” “psammophile,” and “moorhen.” Did I mention that it’s for ages eight to 14?

I’m still working on “embarrassed.”

As impressive as these kids will be, they don’t represent what’s happening out there among writers of any age. It’s dismal. I say this based on grading journalism assignments from hundreds of college students from high schools all over the U.S., as well as on just reading a lot of stuff written by older adults in the real world. I couldn’t find any stats that tested spelling skills apart from writing proficiency, but others agree bad spelling is a problem.

Why? A 2021 academic article reported: “In the early 21st century, skepticism as to the importance of spelling has grown, some schools have deemphasized or abandoned spelling instruction altogether, and there has been a proliferation of non-traditional approaches to teaching spelling.”

The anything-goes format of social media and the shortcut of using AI are also to blame for writers not learning how to spell. Spell checking programs that identify errors and require manual correction are fine; those that employ auto correct are not.

Then there’s this: The English language is loaded with snakes and traps.

Here, as I see it, are some categories of words that make spelling hard. Some of this is borderline unfair.

• Words that require knowing whether to use one or two of a letter – in two places. “Vacuum” is one “c” and two u’s. “Occasion” is two c’s and one “s.” It took me years to learn “harass.” And just to save myself time, I refuse to be friends with anyone from Cincinnati.

• Words that sound the same but are spelled differently depending on meaning. “Complimentary” and “complementary,” “reign” and “rein,” “mantle” and “mantel,” to name just three of many. “Everyday” and “every day” belong here, too. These don’t sound exactly the same but I consider “affect” and “effect” the kings of this category. To make matters worse, there are two definitions of “affect” and two of “effect.” That’s just plain mean.

• Words with silent letters, such as “subtle” and “receipt.” Thank you for nothing, “b” and “p.”

• Words that don’t conform to normal rules. So where’s the vowel in “rhythm,” eh?

• Words with too many vowels. There is no one on earth who can spell “acquiesce” or “hors d’oeuvres” without looking them up.

• Words you spell wrong because you’ve heard them wrong so many times. Listening to people talk, it’s hard to blame anyone who writes “sophmore.” Or “seperate.” Or “seprate.” Or who writes a term paper on the “Klu Klux Klan.” (OK, if it’s a term paper, you really ought to catch that one.)

• Illogical traps. It makes 100% sense for the word to be “miniscule.” Because it’s something small, right? But nooo. Someone had to make it “minuscule” just to torture us. Why isn’t a fake name a “pseudoname”? Maybe it was a New York Mets fan who made it “pseudonym.” One who writes plays is a “playwright.” That shouldn’t be right. One who owns a restaurant is a “restaurateur,” not a “restauranteur.” That annoys me to the nth degree.

If you know of any particular words or kinds of words that give you or others trouble, I invite you to share them in the comments below or on social media. You’d be doing a public service.

I have now written this whole post and commendably resisted the temptation to use the tired gimmick of intentionally misspelling a word for humor. I just didn’t think it was neccesary.

Would you run through a wall for AL.com?

In my mind there were only two mysteries of the world: How was Stonehenge built and why doesn’t AL.com have a website paywall?

We’re down to one now.

The popular site – AL.com, not Stonehenge! – has added a “soft” paywall, meaning a number of free clicks but eventually blocked access to anything more without buying a subscription.

As the journalism business struggles to find reliable ways to make money, paywalls are becoming more common. There is still plenty of free stuff out there, mostly from nonprofit news sites and TV/radio news sites, but more than 75% of sites belonging to newspapers or news magazines have a paywall of some kind. CNN.com added a soft paywall in October. AL.com added its in late February.

The business drawback of paywalls is that a lot of people, spoiled by the many years that newsrooms put their work online for free, don’t want to pay for news, or they can’t afford it. Subscription access almost inevitably leads to fewer page views, which is a crusher for digital advertising revenue.

But ad revenue has been a bust for most online news publishers, giving rise to the spread of digital subscriptions.

AL.COM’S POPUP PAYWALL MESSAGE. (THIS IS A SCREENSHOT; YOU CAN’T ACTUALLY CLICK IT TO SUBSCRIBE.)

AL.com has sought direct reader revenue before. It sold “memberships” that offered perks such as interactivity with AL.com staff (and a water bottle!). Then Alabama Media Group, which no longer prints newspapers, created paid digital editions for Birmingham, Huntsville and Mobile that are delivered by email or available by app. But while other sites owned by Advance Local around the country began requiring payments for access to some site and app stories, AL.com did not, until now.

Natalie Pruitt, president of AMG*, wrote in an email: “Ad revenue alone isn’t enough in an all-digital world. … We all aim to find sustainable revenue models that allow us to continue to serve our readers.”

The mechanics of the new paywall matter. AL.com producers can choose certain high-profile stories to place behind the wall to entice site visitors, who can still see the headlines, to pay for a subscription. But based on my experiences and those of friends, AL.com has chosen not to wall off very many news stories so far. While signed out of my account, I tested what I think is some of AL.com’s best work – John Archibald’s columns, Ivana Hrynkiw’s state parole board stories and Rebecca Griesbach’s education stories. I had free access to all. “Most stories remain available on AL.com,” Pruitt said.

That’s commendable. I’ll never knock news companies for trying to make the money they need to survive, but the more journalism they can offer for free, the greater the number of informed citizens.

There’s a second dimension to the AL.com paywall. After access to a certain number of free articles, the paywall kicks in for everything else. No editor selection involved. What’s interesting is, the number of free articles varies depending on your behavior. Web analytics programs these days know how many times you visited previously (and what you clicked on). Frequent visitors hit the paywall sooner because the high frequency suggests they like what they’re reading and they’re the most likely kind of visitor to be willing to pay.

THE KEY QUESTION IS, HOW GOOD ARE THOSE FREE ALTERNATIVES? AND DO READERS CARE?

This is known as a “dynamic” paywall and it’s common in the digital journalism industry, even if it’s new at AL.com. “We are excited to be testing software to help us find the people who value local news, who want to support journalism,” Pruitt said. The paywall software seems nicely lenient. A friend of mine eventually hit the wall, but despite trying, I have yet to do so. A subscription costs $10 per month for unlimited access to all content on AL.com. There’s also a 24-hour pass for $5.

Raise your hand if paywalls on news websites annoy you. That’s what I thought. But they can produce revenue that news companies will – maybe – reinvest in their journalism. Selling subscriptions when a lot of free stuff is out there — some of it good, some of it awful — ratchets up the need to publish work that is relevant, distinctive and valuable. Because companies want to drive you through the wall, not up one.

*Disclosure: My former employer