When newly-elected President TrumpDonald TrumpAppeals court dismisses Gohmert’s election suit against Pence Kentucky governor calls vandalism to McConnell’s home ‘unacceptable’ Pence ‘welcomes’ efforts of lawmakers to ‘raise objections’ to Electoral College results MORE escalated his attacks on journalists as purveyors of “fake news” and an “enemy of the people,” Washington Post Executive Editor Marty Baron didn’t take the bait. “We’re not at war,” he said. “We’re at work.”
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.
With Joe BidenJoe BidenAppeals court dismisses Gohmert’s election suit against Pence Romney: Plan to challenge election ‘egregious ploy’ that ‘dangerously threatens’ country Pence ‘welcomes’ efforts of lawmakers to ‘raise objections’ to Electoral College results MORE’s victory, if not before it, many of those same liberal reporters switched gears. Rather than ask tough questions of Biden, they quickly became his messengers. Only conservative media outlets have pressed Biden about how he will handle alleged efforts by his son, Hunter, to cash in on his father’s clout, even after the younger Biden acknowledged he is being investigated for tax violations. Nor has the president-elect been grilled about his contradictory campaign promises, or why he has granted little access to the press. While the mainstream media published forests-worth of inaccurate stories about Trump and “Russiagate,” the same reporters have demonstrated little curiosity about the Biden family’s China business dealings.
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.
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.
Rhetorically, the paper has claimed to remain open to conservative essays. In June, however, publisher A.G. Sulzberger, a champion of digital journalism, pushed out his editorial page editor, James Bennet, and Bennet’s deputy, veteran reporter James Dao, for publishing an op-ed by Sen. Tom CottonTom Bryant CottonFive GOP contenders — other than Trump — for 2024 Congress overrides Trump veto for the first time Hawley jams GOP with Electoral College fight MORE (R-Ark.) arguing that the military should be deployed to U.S. cities to quell riots. While polls showed a majority of Americans agreed with Cotton, Times staffers (and many readers) protested giving him a platform.
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.
Reminder: Deadline for RNAO's Media Awards is Feb. 26 – Canada NewsWire
TORONTO, Jan. 18, 2021 /CNW/ – COVID-19 dominated the news headlines in 2020 and journalists worked exceptionally hard to bring us the news on the thousands of people who have died from the virus, the nurses who take care of the sick and the key policy issues that need our attention. To honour the media, the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO) is inviting journalists to submit their outstanding coverage on COVID-19 and other nursing and health-care reporting for its Media Awards competition.
Stories published or broadcast in Ontario in 2020 will be judged by a committee of journalists and nurses selected by RNAO, the professional association that shapes health and nursing policy.
Previous winners include journalists from major media outlets such as CBC’s The National, Global News, Ottawa Citizen, as well as smaller media outlets such as The Manitoulin Expositor and Arnprior Chronicle-Guide. Their work shed light on issues such as the opioid crisis, elder assault, alcohol consumption, funding for life-savings drugs, and a revolutionary dementia screening tool developed for Indigenous populations.
Nominations for the Media Awards must be received via the online submission form no later than Friday, Feb. 26, 2021.
Categories for the competition include:
- Best news coverage
- Best in-depth feature or series
- Best news coverage
- Best in-depth feature or series
- Best news coverage
- Best in-depth feature or series
- Best news coverage
- Best in-depth feature or series
- Best story
- Best in-depth feature or series
Winners will be announced online in the spring, and presented with their awards during RNAO’s Annual General Meeting in June 2021. Please note that journalists may only submit one entry per person. For the complete list of criteria and to fill out an entry form, visit RNAO.ca/MediaAwards. Eligible stories must have been published or broadcast during the 2020 calendar year.
The Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO) is the professional association representing registered nurses, nurse practitioners and nursing students in Ontario. Since 1925, RNAO has advocated for healthy public policy, promoted excellence in nursing practice, increased nurses’ contribution to shaping the health system, and influenced decisions that affect nurses and the public they serve. For more information about RNAO, visit RNAO.ca or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
SOURCE Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario
For further information: about the awards, please contact: Marion Zych, Director of Communications, Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO), Phone: 416-408-5605 / 1-800-268-7199 ext. 209, Cell: 647-406-5605, [email protected]; Victoria Alarcon, Communications Specialist/Coordinator, Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO), 1-800-268-7199 ext. 211, 416-408-5610, [email protected]
Blocked from social media, extremists discuss turning to radios to plan attacks, FCC warns – CTV News
The U.S. government is warning that groups could rely on radio equipment as an alternative to social media to plan future criminal activities.
In a stark warning Sunday, the Federal Communications Commission’s enforcement bureau said people coordinating or conducting criminal activity over radio waves are breaking the law.
“The Bureau has become aware of discussions on social media platforms suggesting that certain radio services regulated by the Commission may be an alternative to social media platforms for groups to communicate and coordinate future activities,” the FCC said in its warning Sunday. “Individuals using radios in the Amateur or Personal Radio Services in this manner may be subject to severe penalties, including significant fines, seizure of the offending equipment, and, in some cases, criminal prosecution.”
The FCC licenses certain signals for people to broadcast over radio waves. Those messages are generally protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. But the FCC reminded radio licensees and operators that it is prohibited to transmit “communications intended to facilitate a criminal act.” People are also not allowed to encode their messages to obscure their meaning from law enforcement.
The laws governing airwaves apply to amateurs broadcasting with personal ham radios, which can reach long distances. But they also apply to people using Citizens Band (CB) radios commonly used for communication between truckers — or even walkie-talkies.
In the wake of the January 6 Capitol riots, Facebook, Twitter and other mainstream social networks have become more vigilant about policing people who use their platforms to plan or incite attacks. They have booted off several high-profile radicals and thousands of groups and users who the platforms say engage in harmful conspiracy theories and other violence or hate speech.
Similarly, Amazon, Apple and Google effectively took Parler off the internet. Parler, the alternative social network popular with conservatives, had been surging in popularity in recent months. But the platform failed to rein in hate-filled, violent speech, Big Tech companies allege. Amazon, Apple and Google said that unmoderated speech could lead to another violent attack.
In response, Parler sued Amazon last week, alleging an antitrust violation, breach of contract and interference with the company’s business relationships with users. The complaint calls Amazon Web Services’ decision a “death blow” to Parler.
“Without AWS, Parler is finished as it has no way to get online,” the complaint said. “And a delay of granting this TRO by even one day could also sound Parler’s death knell as President Trump and others move on to other platforms.”
Amazon said that Parler’s lawsuit has “no merit.”
Chinese and Malaysian Media and Think Tanks Discuss Sci-Tech Cooperation to Empower the Future – Canada NewsWire
BEIJING, Jan. 18, 2021 /CNW/ — A report from Science and Technology Daily | IUSTC:
Sponsored by China International Publishing Group, Malaysia-China Friendship Association and Science and Technology Daily, and organized by China Report Press, the “Technology Empowering the Future: China-Malaysia Think Tank and Media Cooperation Forum” was held on January 15, 2021.
Representatives from Chinese and Malaysian media, think tanks and sci-tech enterprises conducted in-depth discussions on “Empowering the Future through Technology—New Prospects for Digital Cooperation between Think Media in the 5G Era”.
Chen Shi, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief of CIPG and President of China Report Press, indicated that the “fourth industrial revolution” represented by 5G and other digital technologies had provided a new approach to resolving and responding to global development issues and challenges. Currently, sci-tech cooperation has been an international trend. In face of complicated and changeable forms of international communication, the digital collaboration between Chinese and Malaysian think tanks and media possesses broad prospects. Both parties should actively integrate into the global innovation network and promote scientific and technological development through open cooperation.
“Technology, which is the theme of our deliberation today, is another emerging sector of our bilateral cooperation and this includes the cooperation on 5G…Our two countries have extended cooperation, support and assistance to each other to mitigate the effects of this pandemic,” said Dato’ Abdul Majid Ahmad Khan, President of Malaysia-China Friendship Association. He expressed that under the influence of the epidemic, Malaysia is accelerating emerging technologies in the industry and advancing its national digital strategy. “It is said that digital transformation is like a machine with data as its fuel and 5G as its digital fabric…5G will change the landscape of media and entertainment in the next decade.” In his view, China’s experience in the application of advanced new technologies such as short video, live streaming sales, online games, and other forms of entertainment tactics have yielded great results during the crisis. These experiences have also made important reference value to Malaysia. He expected the media and think tanks of China and Malaysia to strengthen digital cooperation in the 5G era.
Fang Hanting, Vice President of Science and Technology Daily, expressed his views on the forum. He claimed that it is of great significance for China and Malaysia to discuss the prospects of smart media digital cooperation in the 5G era. 5G is an epoch-making information transmission and connection technology, which has affected the development of the entire media industry, especially the intellectualized media industry. In the era of intellectualized media, 5G technology will accelerate the data-driven, intelligent connection and think tank of media, promote the construction of scene-oriented immersion, pan-centralization and ecological construction of media, provide a powerful supporting force for the innovation and development of the media industry, and enhance the reconstruction of everything as a medium in many aspects. China and Malaysia should seize the opportunity and jointly explore new prospects for think tank media cooperation.
During the forum discussion, representatives from several media and enterprises conducted discussions on three topics: “Application of Digital Technology in the Field of International Communication“, “Media Development Trends in the 5G Era” and “Media Think Tanks Promoting China-Malaysia Technical Cooperation”.
After discussion, it is widely thought that digital technologies such as 5G are reconstructing the industrial structure of science and Technology and leading media industry changes. Media, think tanks, and technology enterprises of China and Malaysia should seize opportunities for cooperation, strengthen cooperation and exchanges, promote the construction of digital information platforms and the cooperation of digital information, and enhance media integration to expand media influences, thus bringing practical collaboration between the two countries.
SOURCE Science and Technology Daily | IUSTC
72 players now in quarantine amid COVID-19 issues before Australian Open – Yahoo Canada Sports
Samsung seems to have quietly discontinued the Galaxy S20 series – gizmochina
Survey offers glimpse of what could reopen in Manitoba – Winnipeg Free Press
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Iran anticipates renewed protests amid social media shutdown
Galaxy M31 July 2020 security update brings Glance, a content-driven lockscreen wallpaper service
Sports22 hours ago
Why the Maple Leafs put Jason Spezza, Aaron Dell on waivers – The Athletic
Real eState9 hours ago
Avoid These Common Problems with Professional Window Installation
Sports18 hours ago
Drew Brees’ career possibly ends with more Saints playoff sorrow as Tom Brady and Bucs move on
Sports17 hours ago
Saints’ Drew Brees mum on future after playoff loss to Buccaneers
Health17 hours ago
What you need to know about COVID-19 in Ottawa on Monday, Jan. 18 – CBC.ca
Sports19 hours ago
FRIESEN: Injury to Laine just latest curveball for Jets – Winnipeg Sun
Health10 hours ago
Ottawa sees fewer than 100 new cases of COVID-19 in one-day dip – CTV Edmonton
Sports3 hours ago
Maple Leafs avoid disaster scenario with Jason Spezza clearing waivers – Yahoo Canada Sports