Is this champion a quitter? Glad to see the media say no

(PHOTO FROM WIKIPEDIA COMMONS / Fernando Frazão, Agência Brasil)

Among a cascade of memorable Olympics stories over the years, I especially remember the tale of a guy who finished last.

During the 1992 Summer Games in Barcelona, Great Britain’s Derek Redmond tore a hamstring muscle in the middle of his 400-meters semifinal and collapsed. He got up and, in anguish, began limping toward the finish line. His father rushed from the stands and onto the track, grabbed him, and propped him up as he tried to complete the race. Near the end, the father let go of him, and Redmond hobbled across the line on his own to a standing ovation. Today it remains a famous moment of determination and inspiration.

But really, he probably should have stayed down and let the medics come get him.

I contrast that story with the decision of four-time gold medal winner Simone Biles to withdraw during the gymnastics team finals last week at the current Games in Tokyo. After an unexpectedly flawed rotation on the vault, Biles said stress and mental health concerns prevented her from continuing in that and other events (though she did rejoin for the balance beam competition today).

Hard to argue with Biles’ bowing out. An unprepared gymnast not only can hurt her team’s chances, but also can wind up severely injured.

The related striking contrast was the news media’s reaction, which for the most part seemed highly supportive of Biles. The reaction stories and commentary that I saw acknowledged the enormous, burdensome expectations placed on the 24-year-old superstar to deliver perfection yet again. The smartest of these stories acknowledged the significant role of the media in adding to those expectations, especially by NBC, which is broadcasting the current Games and promoted Biles like crazy. And I saw rightly placed empathy for a gymnast who was repeatedly sexually abused by the former doctor of USA Gymnastics.

My department colleague Dr. Andrew C. Billings, who has conducted extensive research on various aspects of Olympics TV coverage, also saw positive reporting on Biles’ decision. “Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by much of what I saw within the media coverage of Simone Biles. … There were a lot more thoughtful, reflective reactions than I’d anticipated.”

The news media haven’t always been like this. There’s a long history of media (with plenty of help from coaches) applauding and perpetuating “the warrior mentality,” by which athletes are supposed to play through injury for the sake of the team. The worst examples are the countless times football players at all levels have ignored or refused to report head injuries. Thankfully, that has changed dramatically in recent years, with greater awareness on the part of players, coaches and trainers, and a greater willingness of the media not only to stop throwing bouquets of heroism but also to actively call out the dangers.

Still, it was very possible to find pointed attacks on Biles for being a “quitter,” though more from bloggers and social media than from mainstream news outlets. Billings said, “There were outliers – people who see Olympians less as people and more as quadrennial characters whose job is to entertain us and bring national glory.”

The critics may hold more traditional notions of the athlete ethic. But some, based on their track records, were likely influenced by Biles’ being a hugely successful Black female. They of course couldn’t resist a chance to do some vile pandering to a particular audience, not unlike the criticisms aimed at tennis superstar Naomi Osaka when she cited her mental health for skipping tournament press conferences (I know, not an exact parallel). 

Let’s leave those people to deal with their defects. Multiple other writers and commentators offered that Biles did a public service in letting athletes – or anyone – see that vulnerabilities do arise, that they aren’t just physical, and that self preservation should be an obligation, too. Even for the biggest names on the biggest stages.

It would be good to see the news media continue to adopt that view toward performers, regardless of gender, regardless of sport.

If I had one, I'd take down the paywall for this post

To get background for this blog entry, I wanted to read a particular article about news organizations removing their website paywalls so people could see important COVID-19 stories for free. But it was behind a paywall. I now have a new classroom example of a paradox.

Many major news organizations that require digital subscriptions to view content generated much debate about the wisdom of their making COVID-19 coverage available to anyone who clicked. They cited a vital public service mission of delivering potentially life saving information to their communities. Critics argued that they sacrificed much-needed new revenue that would have helped to pay for continued work on this and other essential topics.

This debate arose again last week when The Athletic, a national sports website, broke a story about sexual assault allegations against a star pitcher for the Los Angeles Dodgers. Some non-subscribers complained on social media that the story was too important to stay behind the site’s paywall. The Athletic subsequently produced a free version of its story.

Many news consumers expect that they shouldn’t have to pay, a result of the many years that news outlets did publish all their work online with free access. Many outlets still do. Joy Mayer, founder of Trusting News, a journalism training program, said in March that readers were getting angry when they came across COVID stories that required subscriber status. A search of Twitter showed examples of posters demanding free access to an array of stuff: profiles of victims of the Surfside building collapse; video of the Capitol riot; an investigative story into misconduct by a state Supreme Court justice; a commentary on Tucker Carlson; and even a feature on the closing of a long-time professional hockey arena.

This, of course, raises the slippery slope question of what kind of content might be vital enough to citizens to warrant dropping the subscription requirement. One common guideline is whether a subject affects health or safety in an urgent manner. For instance, in addition to the pandemic, newsrooms have often waived payment for news about local natural disasters. But many topics are vital. Doesn’t everyone need to see news about social justice or the heinous acts of politicians, to name just two?

The basic concept of ever giving away your marquee work when you increasingly depend on reader revenue in the face of disappearing advertising seems counterintuitive. That’s especially so considering that website traffic (and the chance to sell new subscriptions) skyrocketed during the pandemic. Imagine Dreamland announcing you have to pay for side items but the ribs are free.

A self-interested counterargument – in case helping people isn’t enough reason – is that opening up special coverage creates community good will and showcases quality work, which eventually translates into new subscribers and elevated reputation. I’ve made that argument in support of various ideal practices of journalism. And that happened in some cases in 2020, though the reason may have been the remarkable crush of major news and not related to unblocked access.

More recent evidence is disheartening. According to the international Digital News Report 2021 published last month by the Reuters Institute, the number of Americans extremely interested in news (the most likely to buy a digital subscription) went down 11% from February 2020 to February 2021. That means loyalty created by great and accessible coronavirus coverage in 2020 might have mitigated but couldn’t offset the loss of interest caused by less worry over the pandemic and the departure of Donald Trump. (Good will effects were more pronounced in other countries.) Further, Reuters surveys showed trust in news remained flat in the U.S., “highlight(ing) the challenges of translating 2020’s surging news usage into long-term trust building in the highly polarized American market.”

In an April 2020 commentary criticizing removal of paywalls for coronavirus stories, Howard Saltz of Florida International University and former editor of the South Florida Sun Sentinel wrote that there was “little loyalty” from readers after the Sun Sentinel re-imposed its paywall on previously free stories about Florida hurricanes.

Only 21% of Americans pay for online news, according to Reuters. Other research puts the number lower than that. Subscription decisions are about willingness but also about ability to pay. Putting any content behind a paywall skews access and therefore knowledge toward the affluent. And if that content relates to health or safety in a crisis, the ethical concerns become substantial – and certainly more substantial than the business imperatives.

Funny thing about the different kinds of journalism stories: Vital public service reporting costs the most, carries the most value, and most deserves financial reward. Yet it also warrants the freest and widest distribution. I think I now have an even better example of a paradox.

The good, the bad and the ugly of careers in journalism

A remarkable student finished my News Writing and Reporting class this past semester with an A-plus. She wants to practice law. 

Another remarkable student also finished with an A-plus. He wants to work in sales.

Journalism is freakin’ doomed.

OK, two anecdotes do not a crisis make. But I wish – unrealistically, of course – that all the talent I see in my courses would want to choose journalism as a career.

You might be surprised that despite the misguided death declarations for the field, the number of journalism majors in the U.S. rose 6% from 2015 to 2018, according to a survey by the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. At UA, on-campus enrollment in our journalism department has more than doubled in the past two years.

Future professional journalists don’t have to come from among journalism majors (as I can personally attest). But many majors go elsewhere for careers, such as public relations, marketing or social media jobs. Within journalism specialties, sports and TV remain popular. Print/online news reporting is far less so, unfortunately. (I base all these statements on student questionnaires I use for class purposes, plus anecdotal contacts with grads.)

News organizations need to create better working conditions if they want to attract and keep talent. I recently came across a couple of accurate Twitter threads that called on the industry to, among other things, provide living wages and benefits for all employees, create better job security, favor quality of work over quantity, and defend journalists against partisan pressure campaigns (on May 20, The Associated Press didn’t, and that’s what prompted the threads). “There is no future for a field that doesn’t take care of the people doing the work,” Heather Bryant of News Catalyst wrote.

“Yes, I’m concerned that one day the joy and daily fulfillment I get from doing this work won’t be enough.”

— Rebecca Griesbach, journalist and UA grad

Still, journalism can be immensely rewarding as a calling, and I can cite a good list of grads from the past few years who chose this line of work, including the print/online route. I asked a few of them why.  If you’re expecting all rainbows and sunshine, guess again.

• Sara Wilson, The Pueblo (Colorado) Chieftain – “I'm writing about politics, which was my goal, and I kind of hold on to the fact that I'm the only print reporter living in Southern Colorado full time on this beat, so there's a lot of opportunity to really own it. All the basic reasons I love journalism are still here – meeting new people, learning every day, embedding yourself in a community.” At the same time she points to an uncertain future. “This is a thankless job, and I don't know if I'm altruistic enough to suffer through the low pay and constant anxiety to stick with it.”

• Ben Lasseter, Sanpete (Utah) Messenger – “I am at a stage of life when I do not mind working long hours, as long as I am building skills that will continue to contribute to a career that suits my lifestyle. I like to keep current with important events and be a responsible source of information to people, so for now, I am still ‘full steam ahead’ on a path in journalism that I expect to continue to bring surprises and opportunities.” But he adds, “I am not without doubts about how well I can make a career in this field in the long run. ... In an industry that, unfortunately, is primarily driven by economics, why should I have faith that this crucial trend will reverse itself?”

• Laura Testino, Commercial Appeal (Memphis) – Laura can testify about the issue of job security. She hoped that a fellowship at the Times-Picayune in New Orleans would lead to a full-time job there, but the entire newsroom lost their jobs when the T-P was surprisingly sold to a rival news organization. “At that moment, I decided, if I should be so lucky to continue in journalism, I would do it only in a place that I loved – and where I could afford to lose my job.” But she’s better than just lucky and landed at the Commercial Appeal. On her first day, Gannett and Gatehouse announced their merger, and within a year she and everyone else at the CA were furloughed for three weeks. Her beat is education and children’s issues, such as pandemic safety and racial disparities in schools. “I felt I was helping people understand some of the most important stories I may ever tell.”

• Haley Wilson, soon to join Birmingham Times – “You never know whose story you’ll be telling and the impact it will have on them. You could be someone’s saving grace by just getting their story out there. At the end of the day that is truly my favorite part. There’s always going to be concerns about pay and long hours. … You won’t be happy working long hours for something that doesn’t get you excited to get up in the morning.”

• Rebecca Griesbach, freelance journalist for national publications and soon to join al.com – “It's all fun to me. And there's no other space that would have allowed me to be and do so many things at once than journalism. I can be an activist (for the truth, for information, for accountability). I can be a historian or a policy wonk. I can be an artist and a mathematician and a detective. You don't really see that in other fields – and I think that's why I've always sort of returned to journalism even when I felt a tension with it or when I got burned out or frustrated.” Burnout? At her age? Yes, sometimes. “Even at 23 years old, (long hours and other work conditions) have cost me relationships, my mental health, my physical health, financial stability. Yes, I'm concerned that one day the joy and daily fulfillment I get from doing this work won't be enough. That sucks. And that's all I really have to say about that until someone fixes it.”

Hearing these eyes-wide-open answers, I feel both hopeful and alarmed. Speaking generally, too many news organizations take advantage of the market conditions they helped to create: If an employed journalist gets fed up, there’s an unemployed one to take their place. Management also knows many of its staff will tolerate tough conditions because they’re motivated by the importance of their work.

Nothing is more crucial to a news outlet’s business success than talent that produces quality work. You’re going to struggle with that if, at the College Career Fair, no one shows up at your table. 

For some students, academics plus pandemic equaled problematic

I turned in final grades yesterday, heartened by all the outstanding performances but also alarmed by the number of D’s and F’s. It’s still a very low number (out of 250), but relatively, I don’t recall a semester that’s been this high.

I blame COVID, and the educational changes it required.

I don’t think remote education is as effective as in-person education. And many professors don’t do remote as capably as face to face. But skills and comprehension weren’t the reasons for many of the D’s and F’s. The problem was too many assignments that students just didn’t do. I’ve heard that from other professors as well.

Understanding the difficult circumstances of learning remotely and coping with a pandemic, some professors – and I suspect many – granted accommodations related to attendance and deadlines. But there’s no such accommodation as “It’s OK, you don’t have to do the work.”

Some students couldn’t find the motivation. I see reasons, none of which is laziness:

• Some students need the motivation that comes from seeing classmates do work and the affirming conversations between students that help everyone get through it. The isolation of remote education in a pandemic took much of that away. 

• COVID necessarily reduced diversions such as social activities and attending athletic events. Fewer respites and more stress, whether academic or personal, are a bad combination.

• UA and other universities acted wisely to cancel spring break week to avoid more COVID spread, but gosh, students sure needed it. UA did add a mid-semester “wellness day” of no classes, but several students reported that some professors didn’t adjust their assignments enough to allow students to actually skip a day.  If there’s ever a next time, UA needs to build a temporary wall around the campus, plop a gigantic inflatable pool and a bunch of sand in the middle of The Quad, and declare spring break.

According to one national survey, 85% of all students, not just those with low grades, reported negative effects on academic performance in fall 2020, the first full semester affected by COVID. No doubt spring 2021 will show the same. Fall was worse for students actually getting the virus. But spring was worse because it’s harder to grind it out for eight months than for four.

Faculty are discussing the possible need to build more review material into 2021-22 courses to compensate for material missed or unabsorbed in prerequisite courses from this COVID-ravaged school year. Meanwhile, despite their effort and various forms of help available, students with D’s and F’s will have to repeat a course. Presumably they’ll do it in a normal classroom during a normal semester. That may make all the difference.

Philandering politicians can't hope that reporters won't care

Came across an academic article saying public officials no longer have private lives off limits from prying media and opposing political campaigns – to the detriment of public service. It was published in 1998.

Imagine how things are now with heightened divisive politics, partisan news media, uncontrolled social media and a never-ending list of politicians whose horrifying activities in their private lives demand public scrutiny.

The question of when the private lives of politicians deserve public exposure is a perpetual one for the press. It has arisen lately with the cases of U.S. Congressman Matt Gaetz (OK, actually zero question here) and Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill, who admitted last week to marital infidelity.

Merrill has been here before. In 2015, Alabama Media Group (disclosure: my former employer) published a story about a four-year-old consensual sexual encounter between a woman and Merrill, who was secretary of state at the time of publication but not at the time of the incident. AMG commendably published an explanation of its decision to run the story, but the rationale was unpersuasive, as it relied on a familiar but weak argument: the “it’s already out there” argument.

When ethical outlets cite social media spread or prior publication by a disreputable outlet (or an anonymous email sent to state legislators as was the case with Merrill in 2015), they surrender their judgment and standards to trolls and axe grinders. 

Reporting on the private behaviors of public officials requires justification that is founded in journalistic mission and serves a public interest (not to be confused with merely being of public interest). The latest Merrill case has that. Interestingly, the Alabama Democratic Party said in a written statement that the Republican Merrill’s “personal life and conduct are just that – personal.” It validly expressed more concern about the claim of the woman involved with Merrill that he referred to African-Americans as “the coloreds.” 

John Merrill

The Democrats did criticize Merrill for “the use of state resources to facilitate his affair.” When tax dollars are involved in any form – government phones, vehicles, personnel or premises – that’s a slam-dunk reason to publish.

Here are some other good justifications for the press to decide a private matter is actually a public concern. You will note that enforcement of traditional moral values isn’t one of them.

• The private conduct is a crime or ethics law violation.

• It affects the public official’s ability to do their job.

• The public official has made moral virtue a part of their campaigning, policy agenda or public image. Hypocrisy is newsworthy. (This one fits the latest Merrill situation.)

• The official pre-emptively goes public with it or takes a newsworthy action because of it, such as resigning. (Merrill said he wouldn’t seek a U.S. Senate seat.)

• A law enforcement or regulatory authority is investigating the conduct.

That’s a long list, and not necessarily complete. Public officials — who chose their roles, remember — can claim only a small sphere of true privacy. Too many of them seem not to grasp this or, if they do, they think they’re slick enough to get away with something.

The power and trust that citizens grant to public officials are vast. The press has decided that fair territory for scrutiny is vast, as well.  This is as it should be.

Like football and chess players, journalists need to know when to block

When I criticize journalists during a class or in this space, I generally refrain from saying they should kill themselves.

But that’s not off limits for some media attackers who explode their bile freely and anonymously onto the platforms of social media.

JESS MADDOX’S TWITTER POST FROM TWO YEARS AGO

Taylor Lorenz, an internet culture reporter for the New York Times, was the target of such a sentiment recently, and she decided to call it out on Twitter, saying repeated vicious personal attacks and physical threats had “destroyed my life.” For which she received more attacks, including from Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, who claimed on his talk show that Lorenz was trying to play the victim to deflect from valid criticism of her journalism. Each news organization publicly defended its employee.

Lorenz works in combustible circumstances. Online harassment is particularly bad for female journalists, and worse still for females of color and those who cover male-dominated beats such as technology and sports (bad language alert on link). Because if you’re vile enough to publicly wish harm to journalists, engaging in misogyny just seems natural.

The animus directed toward Lorenz – not just by Carlson but by Silicon Valley executives and venture capitalists – isn’t a large number of random individuals happening to reach the same opinion about her. It comes from targeted campaigns fomented online or on cable TV. Neither she nor any journalist should have to endure hate of this magnitude.

When beaten down by such a torrent, and stressed by the anxiety, it’s only natural that a reporter would get defensive. But that becomes a problem when reporters seek to blunt performance-related criticism that, regardless whether valid or not, is at least fair game. Reasonable people have indeed raised such criticism about some of Lorenz’ work.

Among them is my department colleague, Dr. Jess Maddox, an assistant professor whose research specialties include digital culture and social media. On Twitter, Maddox publicly took issue with some of Lorenz’ reporting methods and writing style. Lorenz blocked her, meaning Maddox couldn’t see any of Lorenz’ tweets. Two years later, she’s still blocked.

Maddox condemns the venom directed at the Times reporter, and says if she were in that spot, “I’d be liberal with the block feature, too.” But Maddox draws a distinction between job criticism and harassment. “Writing anything for the masses involves having some thick skin and an ability to be receptive to constructive criticism. (But) as soon as that criticism descends into personal attacks on one’s character, identity, privacy, or involves any threats of physical harm, we are no longer in the realm of constructive criticism.”

When outside that realm, Maddox offers action options for journalists:

• Calibrate social media settings to show comments only from people you know.

• Forward threatening emails to company security or law enforcement.

• Put public pressure on “Big Tech” and social media platforms to take action against “the toxic harassment that runs rampant on their sites.”

• And use the block button liberally if necessary.

That’s good advice. I believe blocking is also justified to help stop people who repeatedly post false and harmful claims on journalists’ social media accounts. But none of this is an invitation to do what Lorenz did to Maddox or what another New York Times reporter, Kenneth Vogel, did on Twitter in 2019, prompting much discussion in journalism circles. He blocked Michael McFaul, a Stanford University professor and former U.S. ambassador to Russia. Not exactly a troll.

McFaul, who had criticized the Times for interviewing the 78-year-old mother of a story subject, called Vogel’s action (which Vogel soon reversed) “unethical.” And he’s right. Ethical journalism means welcoming communication from the public even if – or especially if – it’s negative. It also means not acting like a hypocrite, because if you’re going to dish out the criticism, then you better be able to take it.

No haven on campus: Sad to see college newspapers disappearing

Auburn university’s plainsman has ceased its print editions. the university of alabama’s crimson white suspended its REGULAR editions for the pandemic, with their futures up for discussion.

I no longer ask my classes “When was the last time you read a newspaper?” It’s roughly equivalent to asking “How many of you came to class today in a stagecoach?”

Generation Z gets its news online. That’s one big reason that a growing number of college campus news outlets have reduced the frequency of their print editions, or have abandoned them.

The Auburn Plainsman announced Thursday that its weekly print publications are done. Editor Jack West correctly noted the irony: Most of his readers will read the announcement online.

What’s happening among campus newspapers reflects what’s happening among professional newspapers. Except college publications can’t try to save themselves with paid subscriptions because they place their editions around campus for free reading. The pandemic has severely limited the number of students walking on campus, not to mention the ability to sell advertising, but the larger forces working against print products have been conspiring since before COVID-19.

Meanwhile, UA’s Crimson White publishes a newspaper on Mondays and Thursdays, but suspended those editions during the pandemic. It published four days a week as recently as 2015.

The number of print copies picked up from racks has been steadily declining, according to my colleague Dr. Chris Roberts, who is also chairman of UA’s Media Planning Board. He recalls filling in for another teacher a few years ago in a classroom with a CW rack right outside the door. It was a publication day, yet not one student took a copy. Even more alarming: It was a journalism class.

CW editor-in-chief Rebecca Griesbach, whose staff is planning a special print edition in April focusing on the pandemic and the 10-year tornado anniversary, hopes regular print editions will resume. She believes it’s a morale boost when college journalists see their names in print. “There’s just something special about making something tangible like that.”

But because more people read the CW online, she wouldn’t oppose a complete shift to digital delivery. The CW already has a website, pages on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, an email newsletter, podcasts on Apple Music and Spotify, and it publishes on the digital platform Yumpu.

UA Director of Student Media Jessie Patterson Jones said future print frequency will be up for discussion this summer, but “I’m not sure we’ll be able to continue regular print editions.” She hopes advertising will rebound after the pandemic, but printing is “a very costly endeavor.”

the plainsman’s announcement

Ceasing all print operations would be a “very hard day” for her if it happens. She’s a former CW editor who helped produce four newspapers a week.

In 2016, Poynter Institute interviewed editors and advisers at a half-dozen campus papers that had reduced print frequency to focus on digital delivery. They reported multiple benefits. Student journalists found larger and more interactive audiences, learned to report news with more immediacy, and produced better quality work because they weren’t sweating having to fill pages.

Further, college journalists skilled in digital platforms and tools are more ready to nail jobs in the real world.

None of which is to say losing print on campus has no unfortunate consequences.  Roberts notes that print “requires a diligence that we don't always see with digital content. The permanence of it matters as it is being produced, and it matters for our history. The design requires students to make decisions about what they think is important, and it helps readers understand what is important.”

I see an additional reason to hope school newspapers survive, though honestly, I believe they eventually won’t. The best campus newspapers, including the CW and The Plainsman, have always used their reporting and commentary to hold their universities accountable and to challenge the entrenched ways of administrations. And they can get admirably irritating as they do it. No, you don’t need a print product to accomplish that. But I’ve always appreciated the stacks of newspapers around a campus. Amid the prim image and the hallowed status quo of the typical institution of higher education, they represent some welcomed visible subversiveness.

Warning: If you get chills reading this, keep it to yourself

Got a great job for you. It’s in journalism. Never mind that if you take it you can’t publicly support a political candidate, donate to a political campaign, make money on the side without your boss’ approval, date someone you met on the job, or accept a small token of thanks from a subject grateful for your hard work. 

Here’s something else that many news organizations say you can’t do in your personal life: Express a political opinion on social media.

This was brought to light again when The New York Times fired a freelance editor who tweeted “I have chills” as she watched Joe Biden’s plane land at Joint Base Andrews on the way to his inauguration. Right-wing critics on social media jumped on the tweet as proof of The Times’ political bias. The firing ignited its own backlash that The Times had caved in to an online mob.

The defenders of the editor, including many Times colleagues and other journalists, couldn’t agree on a single counterargument. Some said the tweet violated The Times’ social media policy against public expression of political opinions but deserved only a warning. Some said it wasn’t actually a political opinion. And some argued The Times (and journalism outlets in general) shouldn’t have dumb rules like that. For its part, The Times issued a vague statement that the editor wasn’t fired for only that tweet. 

Journalists don’t claim to have no opinions. After some of the news stories of the past few years, how robotic must a person be to not have any opinions. The question is whether a journalist with an opinion can produce truthful, fair and trustworthy news stories. That question has an answer: It’s yes. Happens every day. Those newsroom policies actually address a different concern: Whether expressing political or social commentary affects the public’s perception of the integrity of an outlet’s work. It’s like a falling tree in a forest: If a credible story gets published but no one takes it that way, is it really credible?

It’s a reasonable concern. But newsroom social media boundaries regularly become points of contention for several reasons.

First, managers can partly blame themselves because they’re constantly pressing reporters to engage the audience on social media and to develop their “personal branding.” Second, reporters, especially those of color, might not feel as much need for full personal expression on social media if their outlets had not been so tepid and artificially even-handed in their coverage of vexing moral issues such as racial injustice and government authoritarianism. The enduring failure of most newsrooms to demographically diversify their news decision chains has compounded the problem.

Third, internal management actions to enforce social media practices inevitably become public, as individual employees or unions have become more willing to air dirty laundry and try to bring public ridicule. Maybe except for the White House, no one leaks more than journalists. Fourth, social media controversies arise so often in journalism because newsroom managers have a hard time deciding what is and isn’t an unacceptable statement of opinion. No, it isn’t easy, but sometimes they get really touchy.

Did the “chills” tweet make you question the neutrality of that journalist’s work products? Would you have discounted anything written by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporter Alexis Johnson about the Black Lives Matter movement because she tweeted a comparison between property damage from a George Floyd protest and debris left by a Kenny Chesney concert? (Management banned her from BLM coverage because it decided the tweet showed bias.)

After several social media posts that led to discipline of reporters, The Washington Post did an internal survey of newsroom staff as part of a revamp of its social media guidelines last year. Among the survey’s findings: Staff thought white, male reporters could get away with posts that others couldn’t; and certain reporters were afraid to share “identity and personal experience” on social media because “some aspects of personal identity are viewed as inherently political or controversial in our society, such as race and gender.”

Maybe the easiest solution is to let journalists opinionate unbridled on social media and judge them strictly by their news stories. After all, a known viewpoint is less of a con of the audience than a hidden viewpoint. But in today’s climate of political division and manufactured doubts about the news media, that approach hands a hammer to the critics to bash a news outlet over the head. Eventually, even the reasonable audience begins to wonder how much trust to give to a byline.

The traditional ethical value of presented objectivity – on all platforms – still carries weight. I also believe that most any personal opinion that a journalist holds on politics or society can be brought to light in the form of a fact-based news story. Still, I think it would be good if the newsroom bosses out there could lighten up a little.

No easy way to make Fox News change its bad behavior

No one is more responsible for the devastation to life and property at the U.S. Capitol than the criminals themselves, but retributions are under way against parts of the media environment that allowed it and even encouraged it.

Under public pressure, and perhaps stunned by events, major social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have temporarily or permanently suspended selected accounts, including the president’s, deemed to potentially incite violence. Amazon, Apple and Google essentially shut down Parler, a social media platform popular with conspiracy theorists. 

It’s not as clear what to do about traditional news media, such as Fox News, that also stirred unfounded anger with repeated lies by opinion hosts, commentators and guests about the validity of the presidential election. Wednesday’s perpetrators drew their motivation to act largely from social media, but the politicians egging them on were looking for air time on Fox News and pandering to that audience. Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan called the pro-Trump media’s role in Wednesday’s events, led by Fox News, “disgraceful.” “They own this,” she wrote.

Public shaming is warranted but ineffective. So is the idea to just stop watching, because the people outraged by Fox News weren’t watching it anyway. And even though Fox News’ opinion shows have misled their audience in a dangerous way on multiple subjects – the severity of COVID-19, the benefits of hydroxychloroquine – ratings make it clear those viewers aren’t going anywhere, maybe except for a temporarily dalliance with One America News Network or Newsmax. 

One possibility for trying to force change upon irresponsible media isn’t new: Consumer boycotts of the companies that advertise on offending shows. The idea is to affect the bottom line of corporate sponsors enough that they’ll bail out on the program in question. Fox News has prompted a long list of such actions in its history, usually the result of a hateful comment by a show host rather than a protest of bad journalism over time. Often, sponsors have fled immediately, aware of reputational injury from continued association.

Fox is sensitive about the dynamics here. The Daily Beast reported Saturday that Fox News ad reps have a pitch to reassure companies that advertising with the channel isn’t so bad because the “negative chatter” among consumers dies out quickly. But the pitch damns itself with faint praise: It says Fox advertisers don’t suffer the “real brand damage” that Boeing did from its plane crashes. Yeah, that’s a good standard.

Attempted boycotts often draw criticism themselves as attempts to squash free speech. That’s not so. They’re another form of free speech and fair game on the battlefield of ideas (formerly known as the marketplace of ideas). 

The big hitch is, they’re often not effective. If an advertiser simply switches from one Fox show to another, the network doesn’t suffer. Protesters have to boycott everyone that buys network time, and good luck living your life without buying anything from, say, Procter & Gamble. Also, Fox News can insulate itself from downturns in advertising dollars because most of its revenue actually comes from fees paid by cable and satellite TV distributors. That’s why some Fox critics prefer to pressure pay-TV providers to remove Fox News from their programming bundles.

If not by boycott, a measure of accountability for Fox News may await in a courtroom. Last month, a demand letter (a possible precursor to litigation) from the voting software company Smartmatic spooked Fox News into airing a “fact checking” segment that backpedaled from false election fraud claims made on multiple Fox shows. A similar company subjected to similar treatment, Dominion Voting Systems, has sent pre-litigation letters to Fox, Newsmax and OAN.

Still, legal action is not a great way to bring change because it’s slow, expensive and valid for only particular circumstances. And Fox News has a really enlightening defense that helped it win a defamation case against host Tucker Carlson in September: No reasonable person would take a Fox opinion show seriously. (Sure, then how come a Fox News poll in December said 68% of Republicans believe Trump won?)

I haven’t even mentioned the radical notion that, in view of events, maybe Fox News and its cable brethren should find a conscience. Not just to quit fomenting angry grievance but to quit misrepresenting facts in general. I’m not optimistic, though. Even after last week’s destruction, Carlson, for one, pronounced to his viewers: “It is not your fault; it’s their fault.” Inherent in that: “It’s not Fox’ fault, either.”

These networks remain unconcerned about the consequences of their actions, immorally comforted by dollars and ratings points.

Thank you, but no need to call me 'Blogger Arenberg'

A Monday Facebook post by WVTM-13 news anchor Rick Karle that admonished sports reporters for not respectfully referring to Nick Saban as “Coach Saban” during public press conferences went viral on social media and other platforms.  Tellingly, the sports journalists who responded mostly defended their use of “Nick” while fans mostly applauded Karle.  Yet another disconnect between how sports journalists see their jobs and how fans see sports journalists.

Karle is a former TV sportscaster and I’ve heard him talk about journalism to UA students. He laid a lot of wisdom on them. But I don’t share the same view on this.

Sports writers in general still suffer from the (sometimes valid) perception that they get cowered into soft journalism by fear of lost access or reluctance to challenge popular and powerful figures. Even in small ways such as name references, it’s unwise to project an image of deference. Deference can start to look like reverence. 

How to refer to a coach in public is not a recent question. In an appearance on the Paul Finebaum radio show in (I think) 2008, I had to explain to an offended caller why my UA beat writer at the time, Ian Rapoport, referred to Saban as “Nick.” As best I can remember, all my Birmingham News reporters preferred the first-name approach with their coaches. 

It’s possible to go too far the other way, though. Another former TV sportscaster, Mike Raita, wrote in his autobiography “The Show Goes On” that Dennis Franchione told him to quit calling the coach “Dennis.” A lot of reporters called him “Fran.” Nicknames seem a little too chummy-chummy.

“Coach” is a job description. It’s not a title.  “Coach” is good if you play for one, not so much if you report on one.

And to those who say it doesn’t matter, well, I will certainly acknowledge this: Deference in publicly addressing a coach is a lot less harmful than deference in choosing what kinds of stories to write.

“It’s the most proper, most classy and most respectful thing to do when in news conference settings.”

— Rick Karle, arguing that reporters at news conferences should refer to Nick Saban and other coaches as "Coach"