By the end of Trump’s term, much of the liberal mainstream media seemed to relish its daily skirmishing, if not open warfare, with the 45th president. No longer confining its editorial views to the opinion pages, The New York Times devoted its entire pre-election “Review” section to essays on why Trump should not be reelected. Its ban on reporters’ public expressions of private views about the officials or subjects they cover was routinely ignored. “Would you keep working for a boss who consistently refuses to distance himself from virulent racists, anti-Semites, and white supremacists?” a Times reporter tweeted about Trump White House officials, a violation of the paper’s prohibition on such social-media pronouncements.
Trump’s unprecedented post-election assault on free elections and a peaceful transition of power — the bedrocks of democracy — has vindicated much of the media criticism of him. Yet, it has only temporarily diverted attention from the fact that both the left and right wings of American journalism have all but abdicated the longstanding goal of striving for some degree of neutrality. Many reporters have become not only partisan but virtual enablers — on the right, of Trump’s dangerous effort to undermine democracy with the conspiracy theory that the election was rigged or stolen; on the left, not only of Team Biden but of “cancel culture” and the suppression of free speech that so many younger, more politicized journalists advocate.
Although Trump’s presidency exacerbated the media’s partisanship and politicization, it did not create it. While paying lip-service to objectivity, right- and left-leaning journalists began ditching that principle decades ago. The culprit is neither a single man nor party but, rather, the internet and social media, which disrupted the financial model that underpinned American journalism — print journalism in particular — for more than a century.
Nicco Mele, former director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, says that only a few decades ago newspaper subscriptions accounted for roughly 20 percent of revenue, and advertising for some 80 percent — but that ratio has now flipped, thanks largely to the internet. Because most papers have failed to find a viable alternative business model, and because free online competitors have driven 80 to 90 percent of online advertising dollars (an estimated $83 billion in 2017, largely to Google and Facebook), newspaper ad revenue has fallen 63 percent in the past decade while newspapers have lost nearly 40 percent of their daily circulation.
Buckling under such extraordinary financial and structural pressures, 60 percent of newspaper jobs vanished in the past 25 years, and more than one in five American papers has closed. A growing number of cities and rural communities — well over 1,200, a recent University of North Carolina study reports — now lack a single print outlet for reporting local news.
The resulting economic crunch, frantic competition for advertising dollars, and blind quest for digital clicks have prompted many media outlets to give consumers what editors think their audiences want, rather than what educated citizens need. Just as cat videos and celebrity lists generate more clicks than segments on voting requirements or climate change, news sites on politics that reinforce their readers’ biases generate more traffic than those challenging them with uncomfortable facts.
ADVERTISEMENT
As a result, many American newspapers and media outlets have returned to their historic roots — to the open partisanship that emerged during the American Revolution, when newspapers mobilized public opinion to rebel against England. Blatant partisanship endured well through the 1830s, when American newspapers openly mirrored political lines or aggressively pushed partisan content. That model weakened only after the rise of cheap, middle-class papers whose claims of editorial independence attracted growing numbers of readers and a financial base built upon advertising dollars that now have largely evaporated.
As the traditional mainstream outlets have weakened and disappeared, a new generation of highly partisan, mostly younger reporters and editors has been empowered within the surviving institutions. The bodies of their ideological victims are piling up.
Last June, Philadelphia Inquirer staff members outraged by the paper’s coverage of civil unrest there forced the resignation of the paper’s top editor of 10 years. Stan Wischnowski’s journalistic mortal sin was publishing a headline on an article about the impact of civil unrest on the city’s historic buildings. Entitled “Buildings Matter, Too,” the headline’s play on the “Black Lives Matter” slogan infuriated staff members and led the paper to apologize, calling the headline “unacceptable” because it “suggested an equivalence between the loss of buildings and the lives of Black Americans.” Despite the apology, dozens of staff members staged a strike and sent an angry letter to the paper’s leaders attacking, among other things, the very concept of journalistic neutrality. “We’re tired of being told to show both sides of issues there are no two sides of,” over a dozen self-described “journalists of color” declared.
Also in June, Andrew Sullivan, the British-born anti-Trump conservative and former New Republic editor, resigned from New York Magazine after reportedly being banned from writing about the anti-racism protests gripping the country. In his last column, Sullivan wrote that “a critical mass of the staff and management … no longer want to associate with me” given their apparent belief that “any writer not actively committed to critical theory in questions of race, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity is actively, physically harming co-workers merely by existing in the same virtual space.” He accused colleagues of waging a campaign to suppress dissent from the view that America was “systemically racist, and a white-supremacist project from the start.”
If only 1.46 percent of Harvard University’s faculty call themselves conservative, he wrote, that was still “probably higher than the proportion of journalists who call themselves conservative at the New York Times or CNN or New York Magazine.” And “conservative” in his case, he added, meant he “passionately opposed Donald J. Trump and pioneered marriage equality,” would probably vote for Biden in November, and was among the “first journalists in established media to come out” as gay.
The list of journalism’s cancel-culture victims and targets is likely to grow, given the reluctance or financial inability of many mainstream publications to resist pressure. The trend is particularly ominous at the Times, the paper for which I worked for some 28 years. But unlike other struggling papers, the Times, once the standard-bearer of objective journalism, cannot blame the internal cultural war on a shortage of resources. Becoming part of the “Resistance” to Trump worked well for it — at least financially. Subscriptions grew at 10 times their usual rate after Trump’s election, from some 3 million subscribers in 2016 to more than 7 million in October; its stock has risen fourfold. The company now has more cash on hand than ever before — $800 million. Reporters do audio translation, podcasts, radio and TV shows; the news staff has grown from 1,200 to 1,700. Determined to diversify its staff, the paper has hired people it overlooked before: Some 40 percent of newsroom employees hired since 2016 have been people of color, New York Magazine reported in November.
It is this new, younger, more diverse, more progressive staff — the so-called insurrectionists — who increasingly demand that the Times abandon the neutrality which, for so long, made it the “paper of record.”
Of course the Times was never “objective.” Its overwhelmingly liberal staff ensured that, although its editors usually contained the most egregious examples of reportorial bias. Yet, the “institutionalists,” the guardians of the paper’s tradition and standards, suffered a blow when copy editors and mid-level editors were offered generous retirement buyouts to make room for a new digitally savvy generation.
To be sure, Bennet made mistakes. But before being ousted, he was subjected to a Soviet-style virtual “town hall” in which a series of young reporters and editors blasted him and the essay’s publication; few colleagues defended him. Bennet, hired by Sulzberger specifically to broaden the paper’s editorial range, was forced to confess the error of his ways and began to weep.
A month later, Bari Weiss, a Times contributing editor and writer, resigned under pressure. In a scathing open letter to the publisher, Weiss denounced the Times for failing to defend her against internal and external bullying for having strayed from an ideological orthodoxy. Because reporters and senior editors so often succumbed to the prevailing intolerance of far-left “mobs” on social media, she charged, Twitter had become the paper’s “ultimate editor.”
Of course, Twitter and other opinion sites sell. On a relative basis, the paper’s Opinion section is also its most widely read. Reeves Wiedeman recently reported in New York Magazine that “Opinion” produces roughly 10 percent of the Times’ output, while bringing in 20 percent of its pageviews. But opinions are no longer confined to the paper’s editorial and op-ed pages. Its news sections increasingly are filled with adjectives and views that appall Times institutionalists. If Times readers, more than 90 percent of whom identify as Democrats, were shocked to see that 74 million Americans voted to reelect Trump, who can blame them after the thousands of anti-Trump news articles generated during his presidency. Some were accurate, others not. But the paper’s decision to join the “Resistance” was deliberate. Carolyn Ryan, one of 14 Times masthead editors, told Wiedeman that executive editor Dean Baquet and other editors spent 45 minutes in September 2016 discussing whether to accuse Trump on the front page for the first time of “lying.”
Other forays into opinionated news may have hurt the paper’s credibility, however. Consider “The 1619 Project,” a special issue of the Times Magazine arguing that American history should be re-centered around the stain of slavery. The paper won a Pulitzer for it, and expanded it into a podcast, a book and an elementary school curriculum. But the thesis has been criticized by some of the nation’s leading historians — among them, Sean Wilentz, a liberal icon. In October, Bret Stephens, one of the paper’s few conservative columnists, deftly skewered the project, prompting a defensive response by Sulzberger of both Stephens, for the paper’s “self-criticism,” and Nikole Hannah-Jones, the project’s architect who reportedly threatened to quit if the Times backed away from her or her thesis.
Since Baquet is scheduled to retire in 2022, the culture war between millennial insurgents and the institutionalists seems likely to intensify, Trump or no Trump. The “Gray Lady” may soon need a new coat of paint — blue now seems more her style. Given the increasingly partisan, politicized media world, she will have lots of company.
Judith Miller is an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a former reporter at the New York Times. Follow her on Twitter @JMfreespeech.
Sutherland House Experts is Empowering Quiet Experts through Compelling Nonfiction in a Changing Ideas Landscape
TORONTO, ON — Almost one year after its launch, Sutherland House Experts is reshaping the publishing industry with its innovative co-publishing model for “quiet experts.” This approach, where expert authors share both costs and profits with the publisher, is bridging the gap between expertise and public discourse. Helping to drive this transformation is Neil Seeman, a renowned author, educator, and entrepreneur.
“The book publishing world is evolving rapidly,” publisher Neil Seeman explains. “There’s a growing hunger for expert voices in public dialogue, but traditional channels often fall short. Sutherland House Experts provides a platform for ‘quiet experts’ to share their knowledge with the broader book-reading audience.”
The company’s roster boasts respected thought leaders whose books are already gaining major traction:
• V. Kumar Murty, a world-renowned mathematician, and past Fields Institute director, just published “The Science of Human Possibilities” under the new press. The book has been declared a 2024 “must-read” by The Next Big Ideas Club and is receiving widespread media attention across North America.
• Eldon Sprickerhoff, co-founder of cybersecurity firm eSentire, is seeing strong pre-orders for his upcoming book, “Committed: Startup Survival Tips and Uncommon Sense for First-Time Tech Founders.”
• Dr. Tony Sanfilippo, a respected cardiologist and professor of medicine at Queen’s University, is generating significant media interest with his forthcoming book, “The Doctors We Need: Imagining a New Path for Physician Recruitment, Training, and Support.”
Seeman, whose recent and acclaimed book, “Accelerated Minds,” explores the entrepreneurial mindset, brings a unique perspective to publishing. His experience as a Senior Fellow at the University of Toronto’s Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, and academic affiliations with The Fields Institute and Massey College, give him deep insight into the challenges faced by people he calls “quiet experts.”
“Our goal is to empower quiet, expert authors to become entrepreneurs of actionable ideas the world needs to hear,” Seeman states. “We are blending scholarly insight with market savvy to create accessible, impactful narratives for a global readership. Quiet experts are people with decades of experience in one or more fields who seek to translate their insights into compelling non-fiction for the world,” says Seeman.
This fall, Seeman is taking his insights to the classroom. He will teach the new course, “The Writer as Entrepreneur,” at the University of Toronto, offering aspiring authors practical tools to navigate the evolving book publishing landscape. To enroll in this new weekly night course starting Tuesday, October 1st, visit: https://learn.utoronto.ca/programs-courses/courses/4121-writer-entrepreneur
“The entrepreneurial ideas industry is changing rapidly,” Seeman notes. “Authors need new skills to thrive in this dynamic environment. My course and our publishing model provide those tools.”
About Neil Seeman: Neil Seeman is co-founder and publisher of Sutherland House Experts, an author, educator, entrepreneur, and mental health advocate. He holds appointments at the University of Toronto, The Fields Institute, and Massey College. His work spans entrepreneurship, public health, and innovative publishing models.
Hallmark launching a streaming service with two new original series, and Bill Skarsgård out for revenge in “Boy Kills World” are some of the new television, films, music and games headed to a device near you.
Also among the streaming offerings worth your time as selected by The Associated Press’ entertainment journalists: Alex Garland’s “Civil War” starring Kirsten Dunst, Natasha Rothwell’s heartfelt comedy for Hulu called “How to Die Alone” and Sylvester Stallone’s second season of “Tulsa King” debuts.
NEW MOVIES TO STREAM SEPT. 9-15
— Alex Garland’s “Civil War” is finally making its debut on MAX on Friday. The film stars Kirsten Dunst as a veteran photojournalist covering a violent war that’s divided America; She reluctantly allows an aspiring photographer, played by Cailee Spaeny, to tag along as she, an editor (Stephen McKinley Henderson) and a reporter (Wagner Moura) make the dangerous journey to Washington, D.C., to interview the president (Nick Offerman), a blustery, rising despot who has given himself a third term, taken to attacking his citizens and shut himself off from the press. In my review, I called it a bellowing and haunting experience; Smart and thought-provoking with great performances. It’s well worth a watch.
— Joey King stars in Netflix’s adaptation of Scott Westerfeld’s “Uglies,” about a future society in which everyone is required to have beautifying cosmetic surgery at age 16. Streaming on Friday, McG directed the film, in which King’s character inadvertently finds herself in the midst of an uprising against the status quo. “Outer Banks” star Chase Stokes plays King’s best friend.
— Bill Skarsgård is out for revenge against the woman (Famke Janssen) who killed his family in “Boy Kills World,” coming to Hulu on Friday. Moritz Mohr directed the ultra-violent film, of which Variety critic Owen Gleiberman wrote: “It’s a depraved vision, yet I got caught up in its kick-ass revenge-horror pizzazz, its disreputable commitment to what it was doing.”
— The year was 2006. Snow Patrol, the Northern Irish-Scottish alternative rock band, released an album, “Eyes Open,” producing the biggest hit of their career: “Chasing Cars.” A lot has happened in the time since — three, soon to be four quality full-length albums, to be exact. On Friday, the band will release “The Forest Is the Path,” their first new album in seven years. Anthemic pop-rock is the name of the game across songs of love and loss, like “All,”“The Beginning” and “This Is the Sound Of Your Voice.”
— For fans of raucous guitar music, Jordan Peele’s 2022 sci-fi thriller, “NOPE,” provided a surprising, if tiny, thrill. One of the leads, Emerald “Em” Haywood portrayed by Keke Palmer, rocks a Jesus Lizard shirt. (Also featured through the film: Rage Against the Machine, Wipers, Mr Bungle, Butthole Surfers and Earth band shirts.) The Austin noise rock band are a less than obvious pick, having been signed to the legendary Touch and Go Records and having stopped releasing new albums in 1998. That changes on Friday the 13th, when “Rack” arrives. And for those curious: The Jesus Lizard’s intensity never went away.
— Hallmark launched a streaming service called Hallmark+ on Tuesday with two new original series, the scripted drama “The Chicken Sisters” and unscripted series “Celebrations with Lacey Chabert.” If you’re a Hallmark holiday movies fan, you know Chabert. She’s starred in more than 30 of their films and many are holiday themed. Off camera, Chabert has a passion for throwing parties and entertaining. In “Celebrations,” deserving people are surprised with a bash in their honor — planned with Chabert’s help. “The Chicken Sisters” stars Schuyler Fisk, Wendie Malick and Lea Thompson in a show about employees at rival chicken restaurants in a small town. The eight-episode series is based on a novel of the same name.
— Natasha Rothwell of “Insecure” and “The White Lotus” fame created and stars in a new heartfelt comedy for Hulu called “How to Die Alone.” She plays Mel, a broke, go-along-to-get-along, single, airport employee who, after a near-death experience, makes the conscious decision to take risks and pursue her dreams. Rothwell has been working on the series for the past eight years and described it to The AP as “the most vulnerable piece of art I’ve ever put into the world.” Like Mel, Rothwell had to learn to bet on herself to make the show she wanted to make. “In the Venn diagram of me and Mel, there’s significant overlap,” said Rothwell. It premieres Friday on Hulu.
— Shailene Woodley, DeWanda Wise and Betty Gilpin star in a new drama for Starz called “Three Women,” about entrepreneur Sloane, homemaker Lina and student Maggie who are each stepping into their power and making life-changing decisions. They’re interviewed by a writer named Gia (Woodley.) The series is based on a 2019 best-selling book of the same name by Lisa Taddeo. “Three Women” premieres Friday on Starz.
— Sylvester Stallone’s second season of “Tulsa King” debuts Sunday on Paramount+. Stallone plays Dwight Manfredi, a mafia boss who was recently released from prison after serving 25 years. He’s sent to Tulsa to set up a new crime syndicate. The series is created by Taylor Sheridan of “Yellowstone” fame.
— One thing about the title of Focus Entertainment’s Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2 — you know exactly what you’re in for. You are Demetrian Titus, a genetically enhanced brute sent into battle against the Tyranids, an insectoid species with an insatiable craving for human flesh. You have a rocket-powered suit of armor and an arsenal of ridiculous weapons like the “Chainsword,” the “Thunderhammer” and the “Melta Rifle,” so what could go wrong? Besides the squishy single-player mode, there are cooperative missions and six-vs.-six free-for-alls. You can suit up now on PlayStation 5, Xbox X/S or PC.
— Likewise, Wild Bastards isn’t exactly the kind of title that’s going to attract fans of, say, Animal Crossing. It’s another sci-fi shooter, but the protagonists are a gang of 13 varmints — aliens and androids included — who are on the run from the law. Each outlaw has a distinctive set of weapons and special powers: Sarge, for example, is a robot with horse genes, while Billy the Squid is … well, you get the idea. Australian studio Blue Manchu developed the 2019 cult hit Void Bastards, and this Wild-West-in-space spinoff has the same snarky humor and vibrant, neon-drenched cartoon look. Saddle up on PlayStation 5, Xbox X/S, Nintendo Switch or PC.
Former President Donald Trump is on the brink of a significant financial decision that could have far-reaching implications for both his personal wealth and the future of his fledgling social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). As the lockup period on his shares in TMTG, which owns Truth Social, nears its end, Trump could soon be free to sell his substantial stake in the company. However, the potential payday, which makes up a large portion of his net worth, comes with considerable risks for Trump and his supporters.
Trump’s stake in TMTG comprises nearly 59% of the company, amounting to 114,750,000 shares. As of now, this holding is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. These shares are currently under a lockup agreement, a common feature of initial public offerings (IPOs), designed to prevent company insiders from immediately selling their shares and potentially destabilizing the stock. The lockup, which began after TMTG’s merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), is set to expire on September 25, though it could end earlier if certain conditions are met.
Should Trump decide to sell his shares after the lockup expires, the market could respond in unpredictable ways. The sale of a substantial number of shares by a major stakeholder like Trump could flood the market, potentially driving down the stock price. Daniel Bradley, a finance professor at the University of South Florida, suggests that the market might react negatively to such a large sale, particularly if there aren’t enough buyers to absorb the supply. This could lead to a sharp decline in the stock’s value, impacting both Trump’s personal wealth and the company’s market standing.
Moreover, Trump’s involvement in Truth Social has been a key driver of investor interest. The platform, marketed as a free speech alternative to mainstream social media, has attracted a loyal user base largely due to Trump’s presence. If Trump were to sell his stake, it might signal a lack of confidence in the company, potentially shaking investor confidence and further depressing the stock price.
Trump’s decision is also influenced by his ongoing legal battles, which have already cost him over $100 million in legal fees. Selling his shares could provide a significant financial boost, helping him cover these mounting expenses. However, this move could also have political ramifications, especially as he continues his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race.
Trump Media’s success is closely tied to Trump’s political fortunes. The company’s stock has shown volatility in response to developments in the presidential race, with Trump’s chances of winning having a direct impact on the stock’s value. If Trump sells his stake, it could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in his own political future, potentially undermining both his campaign and the company’s prospects.
Truth Social, the flagship product of TMTG, has faced challenges in generating traffic and advertising revenue, especially compared to established social media giants like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Despite this, the company’s valuation has remained high, fueled by investor speculation on Trump’s political future. If Trump remains in the race and manages to secure the presidency, the value of his shares could increase. Conversely, any missteps on the campaign trail could have the opposite effect, further destabilizing the stock.
As the lockup period comes to an end, Trump faces a critical decision that could shape the future of both his personal finances and Truth Social. Whether he chooses to hold onto his shares or cash out, the outcome will likely have significant consequences for the company, its investors, and Trump’s political aspirations.
