As virus swirls, President Trump is too dangerous for live TV

Bringing change to ingrained practices of the news media is slow and difficult, especially if it’s the fundamental premise that journalists should report all the news and let the audience do with it as they wish. But occasionally, when evidence of significant public harm begins to pile up, change can happen.

• Example: National TV networks eventually came to agree that on presidential election nights, immediate, sample-based declarations of state winners before polls closed could affect subsequent voter turnout. Now, they wait.

• Example: A growing number of editors have concluded that repeated and high-profile attention to the names and viewpoints of mass shooters may contribute to the motives of copycats. Now, more organizations practice restraint.

It’s time for another change.  TV networks should no longer show live broadcasts of presidential press conferences about the coronavirus. I am not alone in concluding this. 

No kind of misinformation from any government official is acceptable. But the news media can blunt some of it with aggressive follow-up questions, prominent fact checking and pointed criticism by designated commentators. With the coronavirus, though, the danger of distortion and inaccuracy is so great that normal journalistic counterbalances are not fast enough or effective enough. President Donald Trump puts some people’s health and even lives at risk when he downplays the spread of the disease, offers premature hope for drugs whose effectiveness and side effects are unproved, and overstates the availability of tests. This nationally broadcast behavior is why some people do not participate in social distancing. Why a doctor had to take to Twitter to warn of the potential danger of using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin together without a doctor’s consent. Why lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients who need hydroxychloroquine are having more trouble getting it. Why, in part, health officials in hard-hit areas have to ward off non-symptomatic test seekers in order to conserve tests and protective equipment.

Trump also suggested in a March 4 phone interview with Fox News that people with the coronavirus are able to go to work, demonstrating that he’s reckless in any live forum, not just press briefings.

That much of the nation is at home and watching increases the urgency for TV media to think about their ethical obligations and respond. They have other options:

• Show excerpts, even misleading ones, later, with introductions and elaborations that counter the bad information.

• Post full video online, with visitors having to click through a fact-laden disclaimer to access it.

• Consider emerging artificial intelligence technology that allows live or brief tape-delayed broadcast with instant fact checking in an on-screen side panel.

Offering any amplification whatsoever to Trump’s most mortifying statements is increasingly controversial among media professionals and independent commentators. But journalists should not deprive citizens of evidence they need – such as conduct in a crisis – to evaluate the fitness of this or any president.

I hold little hope, alas, that all major national TV networks will change. This is especially the case with Fox News, which uses multiple shows to advocate, seemingly conscience free, for Trump, including its journalistic malpractice during the first two months of the virus crisis. And that’s especially alarming, for those viewers are the ones most likely to believe Trump’s words and suffer the harm that may come from them.

Web comments: You know it’s bad when even Advance has had enough

Thursday’s action by Advance Local news websites, including AL.com, to eliminate readers’ ability to post comments beneath site stories was so jaw dropping that it reminded me of Playboy magazine’s decision to eliminate fully nude photos of women. Take what was once a cornerstone of your brand and business model and throw it away.

How well I remember, when I worked at AL.com in the 2000s, the emphasis on posting stories that would generate comments and other forms of reader “engagement.” Reporters were required to engage in a certain number of daily interactions with posters. This really wasn’t a bad thing, as it offered new and valuable chances for direct public feedback, a wider diversity of voices engaged in civic conversation, and even an occasional story tip. But then the lofty ideals got rained on by reality and washed away into a heap of mud and muck.

Website commentary deteriorated into a cesspool of misinformation, viciousness, physical threats, racism, misogyny and other forms of harm and ugliness that made me think some humans should not be allowed to reproduce. Efforts to moderate – meaning to remove comments that violated user agreements – were too inadequate to keep up with the volume of problems. Some Advance employees complained, but engagement was the priority of the corporate office.

Remarkably, Advance finally decided it had had enough. It cited multiple reasons:

• Some commenters have created a “toxic atmosphere” by engaging in “personal attacks and other undesirable behavior.” The influence of this factor is seen in Advance’s decision to also remove all comments from previously published stories.

• Only a “tiny fraction” of website visitors actually post comments. NJ.com reported its fraction as 0.03 percent. Cleveland.com reported 0.0005 percent, and so did AL.com -- during football season.

• Few registered users read the comments, which Advance attributed partly to the negativity of comment threads. NJ.com estimated 2 percent of its audience does so.

• More and more commenters prefer social media as the best forum, especially Facebook.

• The time and money spent on website moderation could be better used for news gathering. Advance used a combination of human moderators and algorithms. It employed an outside moderating company and I suspect Advance paid a lot of money for that company to serve an ever-dwindling piece of the chain’s websites. It likely didn’t make any financial sense anymore.

Advance is not alone in facing these issues or in trying to fight the problem with different moderation tactics such as algorithms, muting, flagging and up/down voting. And it’s not alone in making the ultimate decision that it did. A few notable others include the Buffalo News (2010), the Miami Herald (2013), Reuters (2014), the Chicago Sun-Times (2014), CNN (2014), NPR (2016) and the Atlantic (2018). All of these sought to steer reader comments to social media channels or required a social media channel log-in for site access.

The crucial difference with this new approach: the loss of poster anonymity. Anonymity allows a user with vital but sensitive information to share it without repercussions. More likely, though, anonymity brings out a poster’s inner troll. One 2019 study ($) showed that anonymous commenters not only were more likely to post uncivil statements than named commenters were, but also were less likely to show any of the defined traits of quality dialogue.

The negativity allowed by anonymity and encouraged by an inflammatory culture has consequences. Research published in 2015 ($) concluded that readers’ exposure to prejudiced comments caused them to post more prejudiced comments of their own and increased their negative attitudes toward the targeted group. A 2017 study ($) co-authored by my UA department colleague Chris Roberts, as well as a study in 2019, showed that uncivil comment streams tainted reader perceptions of the credibility of the news organization itself.

Online negativity also affects the journalists who create the original stories. It is common for them (and for the subjects of stories) to vow, “I don’t read the comments.” It’s a matter of self-well-being. Sometimes the impact of the most extreme online anger is highly alarming. Read, for instance, this powerful 2018 personal commentary by Alecia Archibald, wife of AL.com columnist John Archibald. Social media in the wake of Advance’s announcement made it clear that many of Advance’s journalists welcomed the end of site comments. They are not alone in the industry in their disdain.

Still, for all the horrors, news organizations carry an ethical obligation to provide avenues for citizens to talk to journalists. That’s why Advance and other outlets point to other options, such as email. Cleveland.com’s editor communicates with registered users by text message. But ethical practices and the community service mission demand places for public discussion as well, and news outlets’ social media platforms are increasingly becoming those forums. The funny thing is, though, these days some social media commenters, even with names attached, can act just as vilely as those anonymous posters in their basements.

By the way, about a year later Playboy changed its mind. I don’t think Advance Local will.

“At their best, the NJ.com comments were a place to learn more about a story, add or correct information that we missed and engage in a meaningful, respectful debate. At their worst, our comments were a place none of us would want to spend time. They were a place for racism, misogyny and hatred — a place to perpetuate the worst stereotypes about our state, our neighborhoods and our people. It was never our intent, but we ultimately gave a small number of people a license to say things they would never say in their workplace or at their dinner table without the cloak of anonymity.”

— Kevin Whitmer, senior vice president of NJ Advance Media

Mourning a tragic death doesn’t mean whitewashing a contradictory life

The question posed to two classes of college journalism, film and public relations students was this: If you’re the editor of the Los Angeles Times, and you’re directing first-day, deadline coverage of the shocking death of former LA Lakers superstar Kobe Bryant and eight others, do you mention the rape case?

I got a yes – after 10 minutes of noes. The majority view was that discussion of Bryant’s 2003 felony sexual assault charge would be warranted in a few days – after a respectful period had passed to allow the family, the local community and adoring fans to grieve and pay tribute. I didn’t feel then, or now, that I should criticize as journalistically irresponsible any attempt to think ethically and compassionately about a publication decision and who might be harmed by it. We need more of that in media. And it certainly seems out of proportion to brand such a decision as irresponsible after some far more egregious examples of irresponsibility by professional media outlets reporting on the story. 

Still, the decision of some news organizations to initially omit this chapter of Bryant’s life, or to give it a mention so brief that it smacked of forced obligation, seems like a failure. (Another example of skittishness: Before reversing itself, the Washington Post suspended a reporter who tweeted a link to an old article about the rape case. The Post has not been forthcoming as to reasons, but my belief is that Post management decided the reporter’s unilateral actions called a greater degree of attention to the case than the editors had agreed on in their carefully calibrated editorial judgment.)

It is certainly good and necessary to think of all the people who might be harmed or angered by dredging up 17-year-old history. Many media caught flak, including death threats, on social media for even brief references, which is not surprising considering society’s habit of glorifying sports stars and absolving them of their misdeeds. It’s easy to overlook, though, that not presenting a complete picture has repercussions, too. In seeing all the unmitigated adoration for Bryant, don’t the victim in this case and all sexual assault victims feel as if their trauma has been ignored or belittled? Nancy Armour of USA Today, for one, makes that point persuasively.

There are also repercussions for any news organization that paints a partial picture, even if that decision is made with reason and good intentions. While many readers and viewers expect a hero portrait, some others will ask: If you are protecting Kobe Bryant’s reputation, what other powerful figure’s reputation are you protecting? Other sports stars and celebrities? Politicians whose views you like? Business people who buy ads? The answer may be no one, but it’s the mere wondering by the audience that does the damage to a news organization’s integrity.

Of course, the black marks in any person’s history need to be evaluated for relevance and severity to know how much of a place they warrant in a biography, be it an obituary or not. In this case, there is no question that Bryant’s actions in that Colorado hotel room in 2003 were serious and remained impactful on his life until the end. This was not a case of confused communications; the victim suffered significant physical injury. In legal proceedings, Bryant’s attorneys engaged in aggressive victim blaming. The 19-year-old woman had to be hospitalized and eventually decided not to testify, leading prosecutors to drop the case. Bryant never changed his stance that he thought the encounter was consensual, acknowledging only that he eventually came to understand why the victim did not view it that way.

The case helped to create the person the world eulogized last week. He created the Black Mamba nickname in response, because the name Kobe Bryant had become too tainted. His advocacy for many good social causes sprang from multiple motives; desire for a rehabilitated image was one of them. Though some commentators did, I do not doubt the impact and sincerity of his charitable work. He advocated for women’s athletics, LGBTQ rights and other causes. He was a sincere campaigner for healthy environments for youth athletes, working with the Project Play program sponsored by the Aspen Institute, whose editorial director is my friend and former colleague Jon Solomon. 

Some of the more extreme social media commentators argued that Bryant was a rapist and so deserved no accolades in last week’s press coverage. That unconscionable episode of his life shouldn’t cancel the acknowledgments of his athletic achievements and good works. It just needed a whole lot more attention, reminding us bluntly that this was a man who made many people’s lives better, and ruined others’. Even in death, as kind as it seems, to neglect the whole portrait of a newsmaker or other person of prominence is a disservice to journalism, to the truth and to the usually mixed reality of the human story.

“We must include the totality of Bryant’s life if we seek to remember him as a person and not just a resume.”

— Sarah Spain, ESPN

A journalist's obituary that you'll be glad you read

Early in my journalism career, I wanted nothing more than to work for the Des Moines Register. Such was the worldview of a young reporter who attended college in Iowa and landed a few early jobs there. That aspiration sprung also from the stature of the Register. As geographically implausible as this might seem, the newspaper was nationally recognized for its work, highlighted by Pulitzer Prizes, its highly regarded Washington, D.C., bureau, and especially the clout gained from the outsized influence of the Iowa political caucuses every four years. During a presidential election cycle, there was no political reporter in America more important than the Register’s David Yepsen.

 I read the Register faithfully and exhaustively (including the sports section that was strangely but famously printed on peach-colored paper) because reading good journalism is essential to learning how to do it. I didn’t know at the time that a decline was coming a few years later when the Cowles family sold the paper to Gannett.

 One day, I spotted a rare, new byline. It belonged to a reporter named Ken Fuson. I had to read only a few more Fuson feature stories to realize the Register pulled its talent from a different stratosphere. He was a terrifically gifted storyteller. And that’s what everyone is affirming, sadly, in their eulogies. Ken Fuson’s funeral was Saturday. He was only 63.

 He ended his second tenure with the Register in 2008. A year ago, he learned he had liver disease. Knowing the prognosis, Fuson wrote his own obit, and the Register published it. You can read it here. It’s poignant. It’s hilarious. And it’s honest, as Fuson talks about the gambling addiction that he escaped only in the final decade of this life. If there’s one good thing about the industry shift from free to paid obits – another sacrifice of community service for money – it’s that courageous families who wish to do so can talk candidly about the demons of life that too often lead to destruction or tragedy. It’s not Too Much Information. If full disclosure motivates even one person to change, or even one family to intervene, then it’s a public service.

 Once again, the Des Moines Register offers inspiration, this time in a much more meaningful way.

Some hopefulness for local news. No, really.

Local journalism in America is in “crisis,” according to a report last month from the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy and research organization in Washington, D.C. Pen America, a nonprofit free-speech advocacy group in New York, followed a week later with its report that local news across the country faces “decimation.”

photo by susan lesch

I’d like to offer some optimism, please.

First, though, let’s be clear that U.S. communities do have a serious problem on their hands when it comes to sufficiency of local news reporting. Since 2004, 1,800 daily and weekly newspapers – that’s one out of every five – have gone out of business, according to a 2018 study by the University of North Carolina. At least 200 counties, including 91 counties in the South, have no newspaper to serve them. More significantly, many of the newspapers that remain, especially in urban areas, have abandoned or diminished their coverage of news in individual communities. It’s part of a broader shrinkage that includes reduced geography, fewer pages and publication dates, and especially destruction of newsroom staffs. In the past 15 years, according to Pen America, the number of newspaper newsroom jobs has shrunk by 47 percent. With so many fewer people to report and write, organizations gravitate toward stories of broad audience appeal. Working all day to produce a story of interest to only a single suburb is economically inefficient.

The result of closures and intentional neglect is “news deserts.” But do not imagine these deserts are only rural communities with two streets and one stoplight. Pen America and other researchers say underserved communities are urban as well, with many of them being minority, low-income communities where problems and issues cry out for attention.

Why does it matter that local news is diminishing? Because civic involvement and good governance diminish with it. Studying cities where local news outlets have closed or shrunk, researchers have reported numerous harmful effects, including lower voter turnout and fewer candidates for public office. Clara Hendrickson of Brookings wrote: “When important stories are not told, community members lack the information they need to participate in the political process and hold government and powerful private actors accountable.” In other words, local government officials and other local leaders who are corrupt, self-serving or merely inept are loving every minute of this.

Amid the direness, though, are hopeful signs and avenues for citizens to get the local news they need. Across the country, independent journalists with an entrepreneurial spirit are launching small, online news sites intended to fill the local coverage gaps created by the financial troubles of traditionally dominant dailies. They produce stories ranging from basic government meetings to in-depth investigations. Some choose topic niches, such as education. Some are for-profit, some are nonprofit (such as Birmingham Watch). Revenue sources include subscription sales, business sponsorships, public event hosting, investment money, and donations from journalism foundations and civic-minded individuals. (Ad sales? Not so much.) High-profile success stories include the Texas Tribune, the Voice of San Diego and the VT Digger in Vermont. Some have tried and failed, and no one claims that these ambitious startups have successfully replaced everything lost among legacy media. But it’s a promising development -- one that needs the readership and financial support of respective communities.

Other avenues to local news exist. Some resourceful college journalism schools are teaching students by letting them cover communities or statehouses, then syndicating those stories to professional media. Yes, students make mistakes, but I know first hand that many of them are highly capable. Citizens can report news, too. I know what’s going on in my municipal district because a citizen activist attends city meetings and writes a free email newsletter. Yes, there may be greater issues of accuracy or bias in news that’s not from professional journalists, but benefits outweigh risks.

“As local journalism declines, government officials conduct themselves with less integrity, efficiency and effectiveness, and corporate malfeasance goes unchecked.”

— Excerpt from Pen America report, "Losing the News: The decimation of local news and the search for solutions"

Local newspapers, particularly those owned by large public chains or hedge funds, deserve fault for neglect of local obligations. Occasional high-profile investigations, as praiseworthy as they are, do not nullify the need to report the daily functions of governments and other institutions that affect so many lives. Still, commendably, some newspapers are trying to support local news gathering in new ways.

Some (not all!) report increasing success with digital subscriptions, with the key being quality local news worth paying for. In general, though, that revenue hasn’t replaced money lost in print advertising, and the verdict remains unsettled on how much a paywall can support journalism at outlets that aren’t national. Some newspapers are soliciting philanthropy — either for a general fund or for specific reporting initiatives. Local partnerships are promising, too. Former media competitors can and should work together to accomplish reporting projects that would be tougher or impossible if done alone. Partnerships can connect local and national organizations, as well. The Alabama Media Group, for instance, formed a productive partnership with the ProPublica Local Reporting Network. One of my students this semester studied coverage of rural issues by selected local newspapers. All showed a dismal lack of attention except one. Why the strange aberration? It had formed a partnership with Report for America to embed a reporter who focused exclusively on covering the area’s neglected rural communities.

These and other new ideas are encouraging. But sometimes newness isn’t required. Sometimes a local audience just has to look around a little more. At least in large and medium sized communities, the market usually supports a host of local news sources, even if their scope of coverage and frequency of publication are less than that of the dominant daily. Let’s consider metro Birmingham. The Alabama Media Group’s coverage of the basic events of area governments has gradually become – how shall I put this? – highly selective. But there are other places to turn if you wish. I’ll focus on print and digital media because of their ability to offer more breadth than broadcast media (though WBHM public radio does very well at local news). I’m aware of the Birmingham Times, the Starnes newspapers (downtown, Homewood, Hoover, Mountain Brook, Vestavia, Trussville area, northern Shelby), the Over-the-Mountain Journal, the Trussville Tribune, the Leeds Tribune, the North Jefferson News, the Western Star, the Shelby County Reporter, Birmingham Watch and one that some people may not be familiar with: Patch.

The revitalized Patch local news network opened a “patch” in Birmingham in August 2017. It currently focuses on Hoover, Mountain Brook, Vestavia, Trussville and Pelham, with plans to expand to at least Irondale and Homewood. Its platforms include a website, an email newsletter and social media. The mission, according to Birmingham editor Michael Seale, is to report “hyperlocal” news. “That type of news has been gradually neglected over the years,” he said.

Looking over the totality of Birmingham media – geography, resources, commitment -- can every individual community feel informed and attended to? No, absolutely not. The answer would be the same elsewhere too. Just read those latest reports. But if news organizations both new and old deem it as important as they should, and if audiences respond with readership and money, local news coverage in America can avert crisis and decimation.

(UPDATED 1:37 p.m., Dec. 20, to add the North Jefferson News to the list of community news options in the Birmingham area.)

NU students: Low grade for journalism but an A for ethics

Protesters at Jeff Sessions’ speech to a Republican student group at Northwestern University in Chicago (photo by Medill News Service)

Journalism standards need defending in this climate of assault and deterioration, but I never imagined that would include hordes of professional journalists going on social media to meanly bash the daylights out of some college students who work for a campus newspaper.

Such was the reaction to an editorial published Sunday in The Daily Northwestern, the news outlet for Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, that apologized for its coverage of student protests at a campus speech by Jeff Sessions, the former US attorney general and US senator from Alabama. The protesters accused Sessions and the Trump administration of racism and fascism, manifested primarily in their anti-immigration policies. The Daily published photos of protesters climbing through windows and engaging with police, then followed that up by texting to some protesters to ask if they would consent to interviews. You waiting for the controversial part? For the mistake that required the apology? That was it.

Remarkably, protesters complained that The Daily’s actions invaded their privacy and exposed them to potential harm. Northwestern, a private university, did threaten discipline. Still, protesters with the courage to physically and publicly disrupt a campus event somehow felt threatened by reporters’ text messages and by posted photos that gave them the exact public attention they were seeking in the first place. (Maybe next time, wear a mask; those “V For Vendetta” ones are really cool.)

In September, The Harvard Crimson newspaper caught flak from a group protesting anti-immigration policies and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) because The Crimson had the temerity to contact ICE after the protest to seek comment. The flak has since expanded to a boycott of The Crimson and just this week the Harvard SGA endorsed the protesters’ criticisms of The Crimson. When the controversy first arose, The Crimson responded with an editorial strongly defending its actions and the very basic journalistic principle of story balance. At Northwestern, however, the complaining protesters were vociferous enough, including on social media, to shame The Daily into deleting some photos and writing its overwrought apology, which includes a pledge to re-examine student reporter practices going forward. 

A public protester may indeed feel alarmed if a reporter knows who they are. But that unreasonable expectation of privacy can’t become a reason for journalists to self-subvert their reporting. Cold-call inquiries to newsmakers (or in this case cold-text) are Reporter 101. Save perhaps for cold intrusions on grieving families forced into the news by fresh tragedy, outreaches seeking news should not be cause for apology. Nor should be publication of photos or videos that inform the community of newsworthy moments and that record them for history. Visuals further serve to promote essential civic debate in ways that words alone cannot. Their value is such that news organizations can’t relinquish a publication decision to the preferences of the newsmakers. That’s Reporter 102.

No matter how fundamentally easy these decisions seem, I ask the non-students reading this: Would each one of us have certainly made a different decision if we were in the shoes of The Daily’s student journalists, at that age, still learning the craft, under that avalanche of criticism, and still having to face our news subjects in class every day? You sure? Grownup hindsight is so easy.

In my Ethics course, I sometimes do get alarmed by my students’ cautious, conservative solutions to some of the enduring dilemmas inherent in journalistic practices. They value the ethical principle to “minimize harm,” even though that is often at the expense of public knowledge. At least they are thinking about the consequences of media actions, which may be more necessary than ever for journalists of all kinds to do. That’s in part because the Internet gives magnified reach and permanence to the harmful effects of publication misjudgments. You can’t do fleeting damage in a small corner of the world anymore. Concern for consequences is vital also in part because of the anti-minority sentiments prevailing in civic discourse and actions today. It is no longer possible – if it ever was – to reassure marginalized individuals and groups such as opponents of anti-immigration policies that no harm or retaliation could come to them from the haters in society, or even from their own governments.

 The Daily Northwestern may have indeed resolved its dilemma wrongly. But at least those students are thinking about the wide-ranging impacts of published words and pictures. That’s more than I can say for some grownups on social media the past few days.

Local charities: Soup kitchens, fine arts and … your newspaper?

The Utah newspaper is the first legacy newspaper to become nonprofit.

Everyone recognizes the financial distress of most news organizations today. But a speaker at an academic seminar I attended this summer – the founder of a nonprofit news website that covers Vermont -- took it a dramatic step further: She believes it is no longer possible to make a profit from reporting news at the local and regional levels. Well, yikes.

That assessment drew disagreement from some other seminar speakers, but it’s nonetheless clear that journalism needs some new business models. One emerging model is the nonprofit news outlet, such as the one in Vermont and Birmingham Watch (which publishes some of my blog posts and to which I have donated).

Achieving 501(c)(3) nonprofit status under the Internal Revenue Code means a news organization does not need to pay federal income tax and, more significantly, donations to such an organization are tax deductible for the donor. Additionally, from a business standpoint, it means the outlet does not need to answer to profit-minded owners who potentially would start slashing expenses – meaning journalistic quality – whenever quarterly numbers go a little bit in the wrong direction.

 Nonprofit news ventures have arisen across the country. The Institute for Nonprofit News, for instance, has about 200 organizations in different communities (including Birmingham Watch). These groups have helped to fill the knowledge gaps created by diminished or abandoned local and state coverage by many traditional commercial organizations. These “startups” do so with strategies ranging from local investigative reporting to covering the fundamental government meetings that no one else pays attention to anymore.

 It might be that the nonprofit approach is becoming of interest to some news companies other than new, digital-only startups. In a possible breakthrough moment last week, the Internal Revenue Service approved nonprofit status for The Salt Lake (Utah) Tribune, a first among legacy newspapers. In May, when he announced his intent to seek designation as a public charity, Tribune publisher Paul Huntsman wrote: “I have always seen the Salt Lake Tribune as Utah’s institution, much like our libraries, hospitals and the arts and cultural organizations.” Continuing with a business model relying mostly on advertising is hopeless, he believes. “The current business model for local newspapers is broken and beyond repair,” he said this week.

 The transformation of the Tribune is a hopeful and remarkable development for news organizations (remarkable, in part, because the Trump Administration didn’t seize on another chance to diminish journalism). Still, I don’t anticipate a huge rush by news outlets to seek nonprofit status. The many owned by chains and investors would not be interested. Huntsman held the advantage of being the Tribune’s sole owner, which more easily allows for flexibility, innovation and placement of civic duties ahead of commercial ones.

Logos of just a few of the approximate 200 members of the Institute for Nonprofit News.

 Further, the nonprofit idea has drawbacks, of course. News organizations with such a status can’t, for instance, endorse political candidates. There’s also debate about the permissibility of less civic-oriented coverage. The Vermont startup founder said her website does not report on sports or the arts because of its nonprofit status. An encouraging sign, though, came from the IRS in its Salt Lake decision: The Tribune can continue to report on sports, the arts and other subjects that might seem to fall outside tax code definitions.

 It’s important to remember that nonprofits still need to bring in revenue to support and hopefully expand their operations, and they face not only many of the same challenges that are straining for-profit news companies but some distinctive obstacles, as well. Although the notion of citizen charity to support valuable journalism is catching on (yay!), in any community, especially small ones, there are practical limits on the degree of available philanthropy. Too many nonprofits and suddenly everyone is competing for the same finite pool of donor dollars, be it from individuals or foundations.

 Drawbacks aside, nonprofits will continue to be an important part of the changing media landscape. A few politicians are even working to help that cause. In June, a California congressman proposed a bill, the “Saving Local News Act,” intended to make it easier for news organizations to qualify for nonprofit status. In essence, the bill declares news reporting itself to be a public benefit entitled to tax exemption, sparing news organizations from having to prove that their mission and work fall under an existing category of exemption, such as an “educational” or “charitable’ purpose. (And a bonus: Less worry about the blockades that might arise from an administration’s politicizing of the IRS.)

 The bill, unfortunately, is unlikely to become law. Passage would require progressive thinking by Congress. In a political climate where attacking the media is all the rage, and where many politicians love the freedom from scrutiny created by the economically driven defanging of the local and state watchdog press, we shouldn’t get too optimistic.

So many sports news choices. Here's one you can skip.

Occasionally I like to highlight interesting and useful research into journalism, because usually it gets lost in dense academic journals that no one ever reads. At least not voluntarily.

 Sports fans, do you know what rare event occurs this week, beginning tonight? It’s the only week of the year when all four major U.S. professional sports leagues (MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL) are scheduled to play. Not to mention college football, in case any of you happen to be interested in that. So you’ll have a lot of choices for watching live sports this week, just as you (always) have a lot of choices in where to get your sports news.

The trend of sports organizations hiring professional sports journalists started in earnest in about 2000 when the Cincinnati Bengals hired a newspaper beat writer who had been covering the team to write for the team’s website, according to researcher Michael Mirer.

For coverage that goes beyond live action and results, you can turn to traditional, daily local news organizations or to newer, digital-only outlets such as The Athletic that emphasize long-form enterprise angles. There are also fan blogs but they usually just riff on other media reports. Another source has emerged in the past two decades: Websites published by leagues and teams themselves. But think for a moment. Do you really want to depend on an outlet that’s satisfied to report only the obvious daily news and that won’t report negative off-field news unless it’s already public? Well, actually, the answer is maybe.

Seeking professional competence and an image of legitimacy, these websites are increasingly hiring former journalists (and sadly there are many in the job market). Based on interviews with 24 of these in-house reporters working for either pro teams or major-college athletic departments, researcher Michael Mirer of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee reported in a recent issue of the Journal of Media Ethics ($) that these reporters still consider themselves journalists who follow customary journalistic practices.

They say they publish only truthful stories, and argue that their predominantly factual presentations are superior to a lot of today’s sports journalism that prefers attention-getting hot takes over factual reporting. They criticize the publication of errors and rumors by independent sports writers. They believe they bring more “civility” to sports reporting.

But Mirer cites inevitable departures from best practices. In-house writers report news only when their team or league is ready for publication. Their scope of news is limited to happenings of the team, not any related community or social issues that might arise. They present negative performance not with their own analysis but by citing statistics and letting coaches provide the analysis. “In-house reporters do engage in a public relations function,” Mirer writes. Ideal sports journalism this isn’t.

The researcher, though, concludes with a surprising suggestion for independent sports reporters. He argues that independent reporters can’t match the access and therefore the effectiveness of in-house writers in presenting the basic, daily news of the team. So he suggests that independent reporters should play a distinctive and necessary role that in-house reporters never will, which is to concentrate on “more socially aware sports journalism.”

While standard stories may remain part of the repertoire, Mirer advocates to prioritize attention to how a sports team affects a community, and how sports inevitability reflect and raise the endless social issues of today. He writes: “Independent sports journalism should view sports as the civic, cultural and economic institutions they are. It should examine the way events within athletics dramatize key social issues or serve as an entry point to societal-level discussions on issues of race, gender, crime, domestic violence, childhood development, community investment, economics and others.”

Today’s sports media do more of that kind of work than ever before. But more is needed, and it would get an audience if done well. Personally, though, I have no interest in leaving any part of my sports news to team websites, no matter how those writers view and execute their role. The potential issues with the credibility and integrity of the information are just too troubling.

Charles Hollis: Still picking, grinning and winning

Update: My friend and former colleague Charles Hollis passed away on Nov. 1, 2021 at age 69. The only thing in life that I was certain of — that Charles would write the 100th edition of the Spring SEC Football Report for The Birmingham News — sadly turns out to be wrong.

Thank you to Mark Mayfield and Meredith Cummings for inviting me to talk sports on the campus radio station, 90.7 The Capstone (WVUA-FM). On the taped show that aired Saturday, we talked about the state of sports journalism today, Jalen Hurts, California’s new economic freedoms for college athletes, and I tried to say as many mean and hurtful things as I could about the NCAA. Then I did my first public college football predictions since 1995. I ended up doing slightly better than a blindfolded monkey picking games by dart throws. (Note to self: Zero correlation between team uniform color and game result.)

 We used to do weekly “staff picks” at The Birmingham News. My first year as sports editor, when I knew nothing about the X’s and O’s of college football, I finished third in the department. The next year, when I thought I had learned something, I finished 11th. I promptly killed the staff picks. And ended up creating a legend.

 Charles Hollis is a sports journalism legend for other reasons, of course. He’s in the Alabama Sports Writer Hall of Fame. But he began doing a full column of weekly picks and analysis in 1996. He’s still doing it today. (And get this: This year he produced his 36th consecutive version of the very well-known Birmingham News Spring SEC Football Report, exactly half of its existence.) 

Some fans think ability to correctly predict game outcomes is one measure of a good (or bad) sports writer. It isn’t. Picks are purely for entertainment (with “entertainment” broadly defined to include helping bettors decide where to place their illegal bets). Mere fun or not, I’ve been perpetually amazed at Charles’ career win percentage. He tells me it’s about 73 percent for regular-season games. That track record is not because he picks chalk. He predicts several upsets every week – did you nail Purdue over Ohio State last year? – and he includes games involving lower-division teams in the state for which there are far fewer scouting and injury reports floating around on the internet. He does not count losing teams that beat the spread as a victory, either.

He does so well because he understands the key to smart picks: Reporting. Along with voluminous online reading, Charles talks to team beat writers and has connections and a reputation that allow him to confidentially pick the brains of real football coaches. In January, Charles got a lot of flak for bucking the trend and picking Clemson over Alabama in the national title game (which is what happened). But he had talked to a member of the Clemson coaching staff, who made persuasive observations, such as Alabama’s likely inability to generate a pass rush and the height of Clemson receivers. That’s how you nail a pick. 

Forecasting college football games ain’t easy, because there’s no accounting for teenagers, emotions or idiot coaches. But everyone tries. Only a few, though, do it in front of a mass audience for 24 years. “I remain amazed that I’m still doing it,” he said of his “silly column.”

Alabama might have legal sports betting someday (Mississippi already does). Reliable picking would become an even more valuable service. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Charles Hollis is still there to do it.

NY Times keeps making people mad

It must be frustrating for The New York Times to do such exceptional journalism (for instance, here and here) and then to get beaten up mercilessly on social media because of its handling of a routine story. It’s a reminder that, of course, there’s really no such thing as a routine story, especially if you live in the middle of a political maelstrom, as the Times does every day.

 The Times is catching some heat for its headlining and framing of a Wednesday story about contact between the Ukraine whistleblower and Congressman Adam Schiff. Some supporters of President Trump, who likely would have done this no matter how the story was presented, are distorting the article as evidence of collusion between the whistleblower and Schiff.

 This unfairness aside, there’s no question the Times is having a real bad run lately. It has gotten justified public criticism for, among other things:

• A Sunday Review story about a book written by two Times reporters on Brett Kavanaugh. The story omitted facts reported in the book that lessened the credibility of a new sexual assault accusation against Kavanaugh. The Times compounded matters with a promotional tweet that described an act of sexual assault as “harmless fun.”

• The childish public reaction by a Times opinion writer to a reader’s social media insult, including a complaint made to the reader’s boss.

• An unquestioning, stenographic headline on a story about President Trump’s nationally televised remarks on racism following mass shooting in Dayton and El Paso. The headline had to be changed between editions.

• An anti-Semitic cartoon that appeared in the Times’ international edition.

THE ONION TAKES A SHOT AT THE New York TIMES FOR ITS STORY REPORTING SOME FACTS ABOUT THE UKRAINE WHISTLEBLOWER. here’s a link TO THE ONION.

But the scorn, and the Twitter hashtag #CancelNYT, skyrocketed when the Times published some details regarding the identity of the Ukraine whistleblower. (Birmingham connection: The lead byline on the first version of the story belonged to former Birmingham News reporter Adam Goldman.) The Times reported that the whistleblower is a CIA officer who had been assigned to the White House but was no longer there. It also used the male pronoun. Critics claimed the Times acted recklessly, jeopardizing the anonymity and therefore the safety of the individual, as well as spooking possible future whistleblowers. Philadelphia Inquirer national opinion columnist Will Bunch (another former Birmingham News reporter) repeated his call for Times executive editor Dean Baquet to resign.

The Times countered that the revelations were limited and that the White House already knew the person worked for the CIA. Indeed, as I write this more than a week later, the public still does not know the identity of the whistleblower, though Trump loyalists are dearly trying to find out. Further, the Times argued, the information was relevant because it helps the public assess the person’s basis of knowledge and therefore his credibility. The Times said his employment by a nonpolitical agency was made relevant by Trump’s claim that the person’s actions were “a political hack job.” And the inspector general’s office for the intelligence community concluded the whistleblower had “arguable political bias.”

The Times’ logic would be slam-dunk persuasive had there been more of an information vacuum about the whistleblower’s complaint. But a lot of key points needed to decide how much legitimacy to accord to his account were already known: The whistleblower got his information about Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president second hand. But more notably, his account had already earned credibility because the inspector general deemed it so, and it also impressively matched the approximate recounting of the phone call released by the White House. So how much more did we really need to know about the whistleblower?

It’s a good argument against the Times’ disclosures. But I believe, as the Times did, that on matters of such importance, with credibility so essential to public evaluation, that more facts make better civics. To suggest that the public already knew enough about the whistleblower to invalidate the Times’ decision to publish more runs counter to journalistic principles. I would, though, as the Times believes it did, stop short of revelations that could put the whistleblower’s peace and safety at risk.

While I argue for the relevance of measures of credibility, I argue the contrary regarding evidence of the whistleblower’s political bias. It doesn’t matter. What matters is the truth of his account. It’s a parallel to reporters and sources. A reporter should always be mindful of a source’s possible political agenda, but in the end truth renders it irrelevant.

Which brings up an odd twist in this episode: If the whistleblower had become a New York Times anonymous source instead of going through internal government channels, the Times would be aghast at cracks in confidentiality.