According to Gallup's most recent annual barometers, for the past three consecutive years, more U.S. adults say they do not trust the media at all than trust it a great deal or somewhat. In fact, just 31% of Americans express solid trust toward the press, regardless of whether it is traditional or alternative media.

However, according to various studies, the greatest skepticism falls on national news networks or newspapers, whose editorial lines have been quite marked for several decades. On the other hand, local media, which for long were considered politically more undefined, have maintained high trust numbers with respect to the national press. But this reality could soon change, according to a report by RealClearInvestigations.

According to the report, several organizations and donors linked to the Democratic Party and progressive causes are investing monetary efforts to take over dozens of local media across the country, a situation that could jeopardize the editorial independence of local media.

According to RealClearInvestigations, during the fall of 2023, the progressive-leaning MacArthur Foundation promised to spend $500 million over the next five years to support local journalism.

Before that, some initiatives emerged, such as the National Trust for Local News, which in 2021 had pledged to raise $300 million to invest in a company "dedicated to protecting and sustaining community news." Two years later, in 2023, National Trust for Local News bought Maine's largest newspaper, The Portland Press-Herald, along with 22 other newspapers in the state without attracting national attention in a stealth operation.

Media

Jeff Bezos reveals why the Washington Post won't endorse Harris and Musk congratulates him

Emmanuel Alejandro Rondón

Likewise, other projects have been created in recent years, such as States Newsroom, founded in 2018 with the goal of pursuing "nonpartisan coverage of state politics." This project has already formed partnerships with local media in all 50 states, RealClearInvestigations reported.

In addition, The American Journalism Project has committed $55 million to "rebuilding local news."

All of these organizations and initiatives have something in common: the Tides Foundation, the Open Society Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation.

Not so independent anymore?

While the vast majority of these foundations do not publicly hint at partisan preferences when presenting their values to the public, they all have a marked history of funding progressive projects and causes.

For example, the MacArthur Foundation funded, through a grant of $800,000, journalist and activist Nikole Hannah-Jones, author of the controversial "1619 Project," a Pulitzer Prize-winning report for The New York Times. This self-described investigative work posited that the founding of the United States was not in 1776, when 56 congressmen met to pass the Declaration of Independence, but in 1619, the year slaves were first brought to Virginia. This work was heavily criticized by historians and fact-checkers for multiple factual errors in the text and was heavily challenged by NYT editors even internally before it came out.

The MacArthur Foundation, in addition to backing Hannah-Jones with hundreds of thousands of dollars, has also received money from the well-known Open Society and Tides Foundations, well known for their financial support of the Democratic Party and progressive causes.

In particular, Democratic mega-donor George Soros has long been in the role of acquiring local media.

In 2022, in Florida, through the startup Latino Media Network, financed by Lakestar Finance LLC (linked to Soros), the businessman took over Cuban broadcaster Mambí, a historic anti-communist and conservative radio station that had a strong influence in southern Florida. That year, Latino Media Network, whose payroll is riddled with personalities, activists and companies linked to the Democratic Party and progressive organizations, also acquired 17 other local Hispanic radio stations for $60 million in cities such as Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Houston, Chicago, Dallas, Las Vegas and San Antonio, as well as McAllen, Texas, and Fresno, Calif.

Just a year later, Soros' Open Society Foundation and billionaire Swiss-born philanthropist Hansjörg Wyss, another powerful progressive investor, teamed up to fund the aforementioned National Trust for Local News. This organization bought nearly two dozen respected local Maine newspapers, including the Portland Press Herald, the Lewiston Sun Journal and the Kennebec Journal.

Media

Una organización financiada por el magnate progresista George Soros compró casi dos docenas de periódicos locales en Maine

Emmanuel Alejandro Rondón

At that point, Maine's local media was basically left at the mercy of owners funded by billionaires and Democratic donors. Only one alternative media outlet, The Maine Wire, proposed a conservative communications counterweight in the state.

Now, already in the current election cycle, Soros' stealth moves to acquire local media ceased to pass unnoticed from national attention with the purchase of Audacy, the country's second-largest radio network.

In particular, congressional Republicans moved chips, denouncing the speed with which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved Soros' purchase of Audacy.

Politics

El Congreso acusa a la FCC de facilitar la compra de Audacity a Soros

Israel Duro

The House Oversight and Accountability Committee, chaired by Republican James Comer, announced in late September that it will investigate the process of how the FCC approved a transaction of such magnitude in record time, shortly before the general election.

Specifically, Comer claimed that "the FCC is taking unprecedented action in this case to expedite a required review of broadcast licenses by bypassing its standard procedures and processes."

In all, thanks to the FCC's approval, Soros was left with some 200 radio stations and an audience of 165 million Americans in the decisive stage of the 2024 campaign.

In the video, Laje addressed topics such as globalism, the elections in the United States and the political situation in Latin America, and presented his new book "Globalism: Social engineering and total control in the 21st century." However, his criticism of COVID-19 vaccines led YouTube to apply censorship.

Laje's statements on the pandemic and vaccines

During the interview, Laje questioned the measures taken by several governments during the pandemic, especially in relation to vaccination mandates. According to the political scientist, these imposed policies brought consequences that have resulted in lawsuits and criticism due to the side effects that some people have experienced after receiving the vaccine.

In addition, Laje raised questions about who assumes responsibility for the damages related to these governmental decisions, framing his criticisms in what he suggests is social control through public health policies.

YouTube's censorship arguments

YouTube justified the removal of the video on the grounds that it contained information potentially dangerous to public health. The platform relies on a policy prohibiting the dissemination of content that spreads misinformation about vaccines approved and endorsed by health authorities and the World Health Organization (WHO).

In addition, YouTube threatened that VOZ could face more severe sanctions if it persists in posting such content. According to the platform's policies, a second violation within a 90-day period could result in the channel being restricted, preventing VOZ from uploading videos, making posts or live streaming for a week.

According to Bezos, who cited Gallup data, Americans today no longer trust the media, with it registering even below institutions with low trust ratings such as the U.S. Congress. For the billionaire, this inescapable reality led to his decision that the Washington Post must change the way it does journalism, and the time is now.

"Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working," Bezos wrote, before elaborating on how to regain the public's trust.

"We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement," the Amazon CEO said. "Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility."

Bezos' opinion column comes at a critical time for the Washington Post, which has lost about 200,000 subscribers in the past few hours and has seen dozens of its journalists resign in protest of the decision not to endorse Harris.

Politics

Elecciones Presidenciales 2024 | Crisis en el Washington Post tras la decisión del diario de no apoyar a Kamala Harris

Orlando Avendaño

Politics

The Washington Post refuses to endorse Harris over Bezos decision, provokes fury from editors

Virginia Martínez

Bezos later explained that newspaper endorsements in elections do not actually tip the scales for any candidate, but instead create the perception that the media are not objective and have policy preferencess. Thus, the decision to end the tradition of endorsements, he said, is one based on "principle, and it's the right one."

But then Bezos conceded that the media has a long way to go if it wants to regain the public's trust, noting that major dailies such as the WaPo or The New York Times have lost some of their prestige and credibility because, to a large extent, they already look like media that only talk to the elite and don't understand ordinary Americans.

"By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction. I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy," Bezos said.

Surprisingly, Bezos' words generated a lot of praise on social networks.

One of the influencers who congratulated Bezos was tycoon Elon Musk, who published a post acknowledging the value of the WaPo owner's words.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1851077429709951349

"I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent," Garza said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review. "In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up."

Garza's resignation comes a day after media outlet Semafor reported that Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of the Los Angeles Times, blocked the endorsement that the editorial board was suggesting and planning, an unexpected decision considering the progressive bent of the medium, which had been backing all Democratic candidates since 2008.

According to her byline page, in addition to being the paper's editor-in-chief, Garza also served on its editorial board.

In her conversation with the Columbia Journalism Review, Garza revealed that the board intended to support Harris, and that the former editor herself had already drafted a proposed editorial.

When she expected to receive feedback on the matter, Soon-Shiong surprised her, reporting that the paper would not take a position on the race between Trump and Harris.

Politics

Live: Road to the 2024 presidential election

Emmanuel Alejandro Rondón

Politics

Kamala Harris campaign accuses Fox of 'ambushing' Democratic nominee

Alejandro Baños

This upset Garza, who admitted that the paper has a clear progressive bias, which coincides with her views on Trump.

"I didn’t think we were going to change our readers’ minds—our readers, for the most part, are Harris supporters," Garza said. "We’re a very liberal paper. I didn’t think we were going to change the outcome of the election in California."

"But two things concern me: This is a point in time where you speak your conscience no matter what. And an endorsement was the logical next step after a series of editorials we’ve been writing about how dangerous Trump is to democracy, about his unfitness to be president, about his threats to jail his enemies. We have made the case in editorial after editorial that he shouldn’t be reelected," insisted the now-former editor.

"It was a logical next step," Garza sentenced. "And it’s perplexing to readers, and possibly suspicious, that we didn’t endorse her this time."

The parent companies of both newspapers - NYP Holdings Inc. and Dow Jones, respectively - allege that the company, which seeks to compete with others in its sector such as ChatGPT, employs its articles to provide answers to users, constituting an "unfair advantage" of content that is protected.

"Unlike the business model of a traditional Internet search engine, Perplexity's business model does not direct business to content creators. On the contrary, it appropriates monetization opportunities," the plaintiffs wrote, in statements picked up by AFP.

On the sidelines, NYP Holdings Inc. and Dow Jones said Perplexity AI is damaging their brands by attributing publications with false information to them.

As damages, the NY Post and WSJ parent companies are seeking up to $150,000 for each infringement, in addition to the destruction of their content that Perplexity AI has stored.

The ban comes after the U.S. accused RT, formerly known as Russia Today, and employees of the state media outlet of funneling $10 million through shell companies to covertly fund influence campaigns on social networks such as TikTok, Instagram, X and YouTube.

"After meticulous consideration, we expanded our ongoing enforcement against Russian state media," Meta told AFP.

World

The United States warns that Russia is trying to destabilize Javier Milei's government through its media propaganda

Emmanuel Alejandro Rondón

The news agency "Rossiya Segodnya, RT and other related entities are now banned from our worldwide apps for foreign interference activities."

According to an indictment filed in New York, RT had to cease formal operations in the United Kingdom, Canada, the European Union and the United States due to sanctions stemming from Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

U.S. prosecutors said an editor-in-chief of RT created an "entire empire of covert projects" aimed at shaping public opinion in "Western audiences."

One of those projects involved funding and running a digital content companyin the state of Tennessee, according to the indictment.

According to reports regularly published by Facebook, since 2017 Russia has been the country producing the most influence operations that later get disrupted on its platform, a trend that increased following the invasion of Ukraine launched by Moscow.

In September, the U.S. State Department said it is informing governments around the world through diplomatic channels about Russia's instrumentalization of RT to execute covert activities.

The companies celebrated in a joint statement that the agreement reached Saturday comes in time for 11 million viewers to watch college football (on ESPN this Saturday) and the Emmys (on ABC on Sunday).

Society

Disney cited Disney+ subscription terms in dismissing wrongful death lawsuit

Santiago Ospital

"Through this first-of-its-kind collaboration, DIRECTV and Disney are giving customers the ability to tailor their video experience through more flexible options," they said. They further reported that the agreement provided for "market based terms" for pricing, among other details of the deal.

The dispute arose because both companies failed to reach a distribution agreement. DirecTV accused Disney of raising prices excessively, hurting consumers, and refusing to offer more flexible packages. Disney officials told a different version of the story, saying they were willing to offer "flexibility" but would not sign off on an agreement that "undervalues our portfolio of television channels and programs."

It was he himself who reported that he had reached an agreement with Univision to separate their paths, so, after 38 years as co-anchor of "Noticiero Telemundo," Ramos will leave the media outlet after the presidential elections that will take place next Nov. 5.

"This is not a farewell. I will continue anchoring ‘Noticiero Univision’ until December, and afterwards I will share my professional plan. I am deeply grateful for these four decades at Univision and very proud to be part of a team that has established strong leadership over the years," the journalist assured in declarations collected by Variety.

Hours later, the journalist decided to break his silence and talk, live on air, about the decision taken by both the network and himself, assuring that it was "difficult, sad and that it took a long time."

For his part, the president of Univision's news division, Daniel Coronell, thanked the Mexican journalist for his work during the last four decades.

"I want to express my respect and gratitude for Jorge Ramos and all he has done for Univision and the growing community we serve each and every day. As we look to 2025 and beyond, our talented team is well equipped to continue the tradition of journalistic excellence that has defined ‘Noticiero Univision’ since the beginning," the executive assured.

Jorge Ramos joined the Hispanic television network in 1985. Two years later, in 1987, he became one of the anchors of "Noticiero Telemundo," a job he has continued with until now.

In 2007 he signed on as lead anchor of "Al punto," a weekly current affairs program that Univision broadcasts on Sundays and for which, as with the newscast, the TV channel will have to look for a new face.

Television, radio, website, podcasts and social media all were analyzed by investigators over four months, beginning Oct. 7, and they found "a deeply troubling pattern of bias." In numbers, 1,533 violations of their own editorial guidelines such as fairness, accuracy and public interest.

The team of 40 researchers, composed of lawyers and data scientists, found that the BBC associated Israel with genocide more than 14 times as often as Hamas (283 vs. 19). In addition, it frequently portrayed the Jewish state as militaristic and aggressive, while downplaying the Palestinian group's terrorist attacks.

The bias is partly explained, they claim, by those on the media outlet's staff: some local journalists and correspondents who proved sympathetic to the jihadist group. Such as contributor Mayssaa Abdul Khalek, who called for "the death of Israel," or chief correspondent Lyse Doucet, who reportedly downplayed the importance of Black Saturday on several occasions.

https://twitter.com/HenMazzig/status/1832514552023441868

The report specifically targets BBC Arabic, the network's Arabic-language station. It identifies eleven occasions on which it used reporters who had made public displays of support for terrorism and Hamas. On none of the occasions was the audience warned.

The report identifies 11 instances in which, it says, BBC Arabic's coverage of the war has featured reporters who had previously made public statements in support of terrorism and, in particular, Hamas, without viewers being informed of this.

Slanted numbers

In addition to linking Israel with the idea of genocide, the BBC also foisted the concepts of "war crimes" (127 times against 30) and "violation of international law" (167 against 27) more than Hamas. The trend was only reversed for "crimes against humanity" (15 for Israel versus 22 for Hamas).

The Telegraph highlights the report's finding that the public broadcaster broke its pledge to describe Hamas as a "proscribed terrorist organization" "whenever possible," a commitment it adopted in response to the wave of criticism for not calling Hamas members "terrorists" after October 7.

However, the researchers found that the terrorist organization was described as such ("proscribed," "designated," or "recognized as...") only 409 out of 12,459 times. That is, 3.2%.

World

Three Israelis killed in terrorist attack at Allenby border bridge

Santiago Ospital

Society

Pakistani man arrested in Canada planned attack on New York "to kill as many Jews as possible"

Israel Duro

Reactions

According to the Telegraph, the report was delivered to both the network's CEO, Tim Davie, and its chairman, Samir Shah, and all the members of its board of directors. Although the top management has not yet replied, a spokesman quoted by the same media questioned the methodology of the report and questioned its authors for identifying staff members by name and surname.

"The BBC is one of the world's leading news services," Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden recalled and pointed out that such a "severe" downfall of its practices could end up "tarnishing the reputation" of the news service. "Serious questions should be asked as to why this has been allowed to happen."

"Truth is the BBC's bargaining chip in a world of increasing misinformation. If viewers start to believe that there is an agenda beyond its target, they will increasingly question whether the licence fee makes any sense in today's changing media landscape," Conservative MP Julia Lopez opined for her part.

Asserson himself recalled, in similar words, that the public media's responsibility is to "provide unbiased news." "Our analysis reveals a significant departure from this standard," he concluded, adding, "This conduct not only breaches the BBC's Royal Charter, but also calls into question its suitability to continue to receive public funding."

Some examples

Prior to the publication of the report, the BBC had had to correct statements made by its journalists on a number of occasions, in particular for reporting information that turned out to be untrue.

The first occurred less than a month after the start of the war between Israel and Hamas, with journalist Jon Donnison as the protagonist, who speculated about the authorship of an explosion that occurred at the Al Ahli Baptist Hospital.

Media

The BBC admits that one of its reporters made a mistake when accepting Hamas' version of the Gaza hospital explosion as valid

Emmanuel Alejandro Rondón

Media

BBC is forced to apologize for lying about the actions of the Israeli Army

Juan Carlos Téllez

According to Donnison's report, it was "hard to see what else this could be really given the size of the explosion other than an Israeli air strike or several air strikes." That speculation, which took for granted Hamas's first version that Israel had targeted the health center, was rebuked by the BBC itself.

"We accept that even in this fast-moving situation it was wrong to speculate in this way, although he [Donnision] did not at any point report that it was an Israeli strike. This doesn’t represent the entirety of the BBC’s output, and anyone watching, listening to or reading our coverage can see we have set out both sides’ competing claims about the explosion, clearly showing who is saying them, and what we do or don’t know," the British broadcaster posted on its "corrections and clarifications" page.

Another of the most notable cases took place in November 2023 and was related to false information about an alleged Israeli attack on doctors in Gaza's Al-Shifa hospital. At the time, they argued that the error was due to a misquotation of a Reuters report, although they did acknowledge that the initial report "fell below the editorial standards" of the network.

During the interview, Cooper claimed that Winston Churchill, and not German dictator Adolf Hitler, was the real "villain" of World War II.

In another moment of the interview, the controversial historian suggested that the six million Jews killed by the Nazis were not actually exterminated in a systematized persecution, but died because the German Army was logistically unprepared to hold millions prisoner in concentration camps.

"I thought Churchill was the chief villain of the Second World War," Cooper said of the former British prime minister, who cautioned that his comment was provocative. "Now, he didn’t kill the most people, he didn’t commit the most atrocities, but I believe... that when you get into it and tell the story right and don’t leave anything out, you see that he was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did."

https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1830980276119564317

Cooper then claimed that Hitler was not on the side of "the good guys" either, but then relativized his bloody crimes by claiming that the German high command had all the POWs murdered because of his inability to handle them.

According to Cooper, Hitler's mistake was deciding to have Germany enter "a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners."

"They went in with no plan for that and they just threw these people into camps," Cooper said. "And millions of people ended up dead there."

In a separate thread on X, Cooper amplified his view of why he considered Churchill to be the main cause of the Second War,leaving aside all responsibility for Nazi Germany and, especially, Hitler, in the conflict.

In his publication, Cooper asserted that Hitler was, in fact, seeking "peace" and had proposed a solution to the West to achieve it: surrendering parts of Poland that were not very German and working with the other powers to end what he called "the Jewish problem."

"Hitler tried again, going on the radio to broadcast a call for peace directly to the British people. He would give back the parts of Poland that were not majority German, and would work with the other powers to reach an acceptable solution to the Jewish problem. He was ignored," wrote Cooper, who has a long history of controversial and anti-Semitic comments.

https://twitter.com/martyrmade/status/1831071689133953199

For example, in an August 2023 post, Cooper claimed that "God is the villain in the Book of Job," a sacred text in the Jewish Tanakh and the Christian Old Testament.

https://twitter.com/ostrachan/status/1831388150079615233

He has also made openly Nazi apologist comments.

For example, recently, apropos of the controversial anti-Christian Olympic Games ceremony, Cooper published a photo of Hitler in Paris to the left side of the Last Supper that was made by the organization of the Olympics. The self-styled historian wrote: "This may be putting it too crudely for some, but the picture on the left was infinitely preferable in virtually every way than the one on the right."

Carlson's harsh criticism for giving a platform to a Nazi apologist

After the interview saw the light of day, the popularity of Cooper's podcast, 'Martyr Made,' skyrocketed. The episode, in a matter of hours, ranked at #2 on all Apple podcasts on Tuesday afternoon, behind only Carlson's. It eventually made it to the top spot.

In the wake of the interview, criticism rained down on Carlson, especially from conservative commentators who contradicted Cooper's comments and questioned the Fox News host for not rebutting his guest's arguments.

"Didn’t expect Tucker Carlson to become an outlet for Nazi apologetics, but here we are," conservative analyst Erick Erickson wrote on X. "“He’s neither the best nor the most honest. He’s a contrarian moral cretin who has turned his contrarianism into Nazi apologetics."

"This is just the same old Hitler apologetic," Sohrab Ahmari, founder of the conservative magazine Compact, wrote on X. "Remarkably, there isn’t any historiography behind it. This 'popular historian' just makes conclusory claims. Shameful."

"Tucker Carlson is promoting a guest who says Winston Churchill is the 'chief villain of World War 2' and makes excuses for Hitler and Nazi Germany. Some of the biggest voices on the Right are becoming just as intellectually and morally bankrupt as leftists," said writer Samuel Sey.

“I am trying to believe my ears, because on Tucker Carlson's respected podcast I just heard these immortal words: 'I read about Churchill, and he strikes me as a psychopath.' Who *on earth* is Darryl Cooper, and how did he get this platform?” questioned author Owen Strachan.

The outpouring of comments was so massive that even Elon Musk, who had publicly recommended the interview just minutes after it was published, deleted his post and subsequently amplified a community note that harshly questioned Cooper.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1831365045277860179

Sports

US Open: Coco Gauff bids farewell, Emma Navarro dreams big

Santiago Ospital

The decision came after both companies failed to reach a new distribution agreement, leaving 11 million subscribers without a signal.

A particularly troubling development for sports fans who saw the ESPN channel go black just days before the start of American football and the NFL season.

That angered millions of people as a result. Rob Thun, DirecTV's chief content officer, asserted in a statement obtained by CNN that Disney would have to "be held accountable."

"The Walt Disney Co. is once again refusing any accountability to consumers, distribution partners, and now the American judicial system."

Rob Thun, DirectTV's chief content officer.

Along with this, Thun assured that the entertainment giant had simply been engaged in raising prices, without taking into account that consumers are the ones who pay for it and cannot continue to bear such exorbitant costs. Thus, it had denied DirecTV from offering more flexible packages that could better meet consumers' interests.

"Disney is in the business of creating alternate realities, but this is the real world where we believe you earn your way and must answer for your own actions. They want to continue to chase maximum profits and dominant control at the expense of consumers - making it harder for them to select the shows and sports they want at a reasonable price," said DirecTV's chief content officer.

The Walt Disney Company claimed in a press release that it did not intend to agree to anything that "undervalues our portfolio of television channels and programs."

"While we’re open to offering DirecTV flexibility and terms which we’ve extended to other distributors, we will not enter into an agreement that undervalues our portfolio of television channels and programs. We invest significantly to deliver the No. 1 brands in entertainment, news and sports because that’s what our viewers expect and deserve. We urge DirecTV to do what’s in the best interest of their customers and finalize a deal that would immediately restore our programming."

Until then, The Walt Disney Company assured, its television channels, including ESPN, ABC, Hulu, Freeform, FX, Disney Channel and National Geographic, will continue to be blacked out and will not be viewable on DirecTV.

A report by researchers at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia, reveals key facts about the non-profit institution that claims to reach "virtually every region of the world," offering financial support, training and mentoring to thousands of reporters.

According to the EJN’s website, it is supported by international organizations such as the European Commission and the United Nations, national ones like the U.S. State Department and some of the country's most important names, such as Rockefeller and Bloomberg. There is also no shortage of organizations such as the controversial Tides.

Opinion

Trouble in paradise: Climate alarmism defunds traditional environmentalism

Karina Mariani

“Covering the Planet: Assessing the State of Climate and Environmental Journalism” is a groundbreaking report, according to its authors, because it is the first "truly global" study of environmental and climate change journalism.

After interviewing hundreds of journalists, it offers analysis and possible solutions to coverage. In doing so, it reveals key points about what it seeks from journalists in exchange for green funding. "Every story is a climate story."

A profession in crisis, an opportunity for green money

Journalism facing a funding crisis is an undeniable reality of the profession, and a true one. Since the rise of the internet, advertisers have abandoned newspapers in favor of other digital media, such as social networks, and print circulation has plummeted. This is something that environmental organizations can take advantage of, according to the report.

Journalists who have benefited, however, admit to being concerned about how this external money affects their independence. One reporter from Brazil acknowledged that the funding objectives of environmental organizations influence the choice of which topics to cover: "Why did we have so much coverage about Amazon? Because it was important, but also, because there is funding to do that."

Society

This is the intricate network of financiers behind the chaos in the U.S.

Leandro Fleischer

The same journalist points out that a "bubble" of media born thanks to this international funding was created, and they depend on it to keep flowing. In another part of the report, the researchers recommend that donors allow journalists more freedom to decide what topics to cover, because many times NGOs provide funds to cover "a particular subject area, determined by funder interests and goals."

Another example is at the end of the report, when it advises journalists that “‘justice perspectives’ should be highlighted in climate change reporting.”

It also warns: "Responsibility for causing and responding to climate and environmental harms is not equal across the planet. Journalists should address differential responsibility and climate justice perspectives in their climate change reporting."

Activist journalism

The report also calls into question the role of reporters. After acknowledging that environmental journalists are often considered activists by their colleagues, it argues that both the possibility of objectivity and its necessity have been called into question.

In its final recommendations to reporters, the report tells them that they should "consider their own, and their media outlet’s position on the spectrum between ‘objectivity’ and ‘advocacy.’" It also argues that "each journalist should consider their own stance on objectivity in journalism versus advocacy for action." It says that being an activist and being objective are not necessarily "mutually exclusive."

Politics

Aileen Getty, the rich oil heiress behind the attack on the 'Mona Lisa'

Santiago Ospital

It likewise advises millionaire donors to forget about objectivity: "A requirement not to advocate should not be a condition of funding climate and environmental journalism."

The report not only takes aim at the professional pursuit of objectivity, but also recommends silencing dissenting voices. "Journalists should not provide a platform for sources that deny climate science," it says bluntly.

The study describes as "concerning" that there are reporters who seek to do "balanced" reporting. Some 62% of respondents claimed to have included testimony from sources that are "skeptical" that climate change is caused by humans or "climate science."

"It has famously been shown, for example, that journalistic ‘balance’ can be problematic when reporting on highly polarized issues such as climate change."

“Covering the Planet: Assessing the State of Climate and Environmental Journalism.”

While at the end of the report the authors prompt journalists to question objectivity, in the executive summary, they provide them with an answer:

"In our current global moment, every story is a climate story – and every story, singularly and collectively, has the potential to address the threats faced by our shared planetary habitat," the executive summary reads.

Media Guild of the West, one of the groups critical of the measure, said in a statement that "not a single organization representing journalists and news workers agreed to this undemocratic and secretive deal with one of the businesses destroying our industry."

https://twitter.com/i/status/1826416538909638876

The deal was announced by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, who claimed it will be "empowering local news outlets up and down the state." The pact, explained her office, would provide about 250 million in public and private funding to California media over the next five years.

Details on how the distribution of the money will be made or decided are unknown at this time. Matt Pearce, president of the Media Guild of the West, said that although "no one knows that because the terms are secret," the pact includes automatic payments of taxpayer money to hedge funds.

Tech & Science

Federal court declares Google an illegal monopoly

Sabrina Martin

Pearce thus contradicted claims by journalist and advocate for the agreement Jeff Jarvis, who claimed the money would only be distributed by an independent board working out of UC Berkeley.

Wicks' office explains that the fund will be called the News Transformation Fund, and would receive funds from tech and the state. One of the repeated criticisms of the agreement is that the money will not be a direct payout from Google to the newspapers it uses for its services. So said Brian Merchant, a columnist for the LA Times:

"This bill was supposed to generate ~$75m a year for CA journalists, with big tech paying a tiny fee for hosting headlines that add value to their platforms, which they sell ads against.

Now, it's a 5-year plan for $250m split between the state—and including AI initiatives."

https://twitter.com/i/status/1826376766233227276

Another frequent criticism of the agreement that will go into effect in 2025 is that journalists and journalist associations say they had no say. Merchant rightly points out that Assemblyman Wicks' statement announcing the agreement does not name journalists among the parties who negotiated the agreement, but rather the state, publishers, big tech and philanthropists.

Artificial intelligence

"Journalists have been totally railroaded," argued Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel for the American Economic Liberties Project, and took aim at another controversial measure in the initiative: the creation of the National AI Innovation Accelerator that will distribute resources for the media to experiment with the use of Artificial Intelligence.

"Shady deals with illegal monopolists are no way to set AI policy," argued Lee, who claimed that the accelerator should be scrapped.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1826140608265859255

The statement explaining the initiative does not detail how these funds will be distributed, but does contend that it will be done "in collaboration with a private nonprofit."

Criticism within the Assembly

"Despite the good intentions of the parties involved, this proposal does not provide sufficient resources," claimed state Sen. Steve Glazer.

The Democrat argued that the agreement fell short compared to the one Google reached with Canadian authorities, and claimed that it "seriously" undermined efforts to reach a long-term solution (Glazer had proposed putting a tax on digital advertising revenue).

State Senate President Pro Tempore, Mike McGuire, sided with Glazer's criticism and praised his efforts to "hold Big Tech companies accountable for the profits they make off the backs of hard-working journalists."

https://twitter.com/i/status/1826395207711293786

Walden is not just another co-chairwoman. She's in charge of ABC News and the company's other TV channels as well as its streaming platform and is one of the leading names to replace Bob Iger when the CEO is ready to retire.

That is the reason for the problem. She controls the news division of the company, and it has been discovered that there could be a conflict of interest, as their friendship dates back to 1994.

It was The New York Times that revealed the existence of this relationship. It also reported that relationship between the two's respective husbands, Matt Walden and Doug Emhoff, dates back even further, as long ago as the 1980s.

In fact, the newspaper began an extensive investigation and uncovered that Walden had collaborated in several Harris campaigns between 2003 and 2022, even helping to organize them.

After that, Walden stopped collaborating so actively in the vice president's fundraisers, although last year, she donated $20,000 to support President Biden and the Democratic Party in the upcoming presidential election, as can be seen in documents published by The New York Times.

But the relationship goes even further. According to Harris, the Waldens were among the architects of her marriage to Doug Emhoff:

"In many ways, Dana and Matt are responsible for my marriage."

Kamala Harris, vice president and Democratic candidate for the 2024 presidential election

All this has cast doubt on the position ABC News will take during the debate that, moderated by anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis, will take place on Sept. 10 in prime time.

But the TV network assured that there will be no conflict of interest during the debate. On the contrary, it assured that the event will be organized by journalists and not by Dana Walden, who will have no editorial authority of any kind.

"ABC News has built its longstanding reputation on journalistic integrity. All editorial decisions are in the hands of ABC News management and the seasoned journalists and producers of ABC, who hold themselves to the highest journalistic standards," the network detailed in a statement.

These affected individuals, he explained via a memo to his employees, will receive an email with information about severance packages as well as an invitation to a meeting with a leader of their team and a member of the People Team.

"We wanted to tell each of you in person first, but the mechanics of that proved infeasible."

Memo to employees sent by Axios CEO Jim VandeHei.

The decision, the executive clarified, is being made in an attempt to "adapt fast to a rapidly changing media landscape."

"We’re eliminating around 50 positions to get ahead of tectonic shifts in the media, technology and reader needs/habits. This is a painful but necessary move to tighten our strategic focus and shift investment to our core growth areas."

Memo to employees sent by Axios CEO Jim VandeHei.

The news, obtained exclusively by The New York Times reporter, Katie Robertson, comes a few months after other media outlets also cut down their staff.

Examples include Univision, Los Angeles Times, Forbes, and Business Insider and all of them blamed the layoffs on the same cause as Axios, "changes in the media business":

"As I've said before, this is the most difficult moment for media in our lifetime. Only those who move fast — and make difficult, decisive moves — will thrive."

Memo to employees sent by Axios CEO Jim VandeHei.

Given this, the media company's CEO explained, while the company will continue to hire in "key areas," it will also need to implement some measure to stem the losses brought on by fragmentation of reader attention, new rivals and the emergence of artificial intelligence models capable of summarizing news.

Along with this, VandeHei explained that they would boost their "US news coverage" and also expand "their city-specific news bulletins to new locations faster" where this product may be of interest.

Finally, he detailed, they would also continue to bet on its subscription product, Axios Pro, aimed at business professionals and one of the most profitable for the company while also looking to close "potential acquisitions."

However, the paper skipped the publication date that had been agreed upon by several US media outlets and Bloomberg's editor-in-chief John Micklethwait responded by announcing that the newspaper would retaliate against staff who violated the embargo and who "published prematurely" the release of Gershkovich and the rest of the prisoners.

Micklethwait reported this decision in a memo he sent to his employees that was obtained by The New York Times. In the brief, the editor-in-chief confirmed that the journalists' skipping the embargo "could have jeopardized the negotiated exchange that freed them."

"While our story fortunately had no effect, it was a clear violation of the editorial standards that have made this newsroom so trusted around the world."

John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief of 'Bloomberg News'

Along with the disciplinary measures, the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News assured that he had contacted Gershkovich, Whelan and the rest of the prisoners to apologize for what had happened as well as with the editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal, Emma Tucker, one of the people who denounced that the newspaper had skipped the embargo that had been agreed to by several U.S. media outlets.

In addition, Michlethwait stated that Bloomberg "will review our processes to ensure that failures like this don't happen again."

"We publish thousands of stories every day, many of which are breaking news. We take accuracy very seriously, but we also have a responsibility to do the right thing. In this case we didn't."

John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief of 'Bloomberg News'

Disciplinary action did not take long. Bloomberg has decided to fire one of the journalists who signed off on the story: White House correspondent Jennifer Jacobs.

The journalist took to the social network X and published a statement in which she assured that she never did "anything that was deliberately incompatible with the administration's embargo or that put anyone involved at risk."

https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1820566447149724076

Along with this, the reporter asserted that "the idea of endangering the safety of a colleague is deeply disturbing at a level that is difficult to describe."

However, she said, she did not decide when the article was released, since, she assured in the statement, journalists "don't have the final say on when a story is published or with what headline," claiming that she had nothing to do with the story being published earlier than it should have been.

In a filing in federal court in Washington, the DOJ argued that a system known as Lark allows employees of TikTok or its Chinese parent, ByteDance, to collect information about its users. Lark would also allow the social network's team to communicate directly with company engineers in China.

"Given TikTok's broad reach within the United States, the capacity for China to use TikTok's features to achieve its overarching objective to undermine American interests creates a national-security threat of immense depth and scale."

Department of Justice.

TikTok used this system, according to the court document, to collect sensitive data from its users on U.S. soil. This information would then be stored on servers in China, which ByteDance workers would have access to.

"That algorithm can be manually manipulated, and its location in China would permit the Chinese government to covertly control the algorithm, and thus secretly shape the content that American users receive," reads the filing, picked up by AFP.

The First Amendment argument

The technology company argues that "the Constitution is on our side." According to them, banning its use would silence the voices of 170 million Americans, "violating the First Amendment."

https://twitter.com/i/status/1817070296144150802

In its recent court filing, however, the DOJ asserts that because the law focuses on foreign ownership of the social network, it has little to do with the First Amendment. Instead, they insisted, the focus of the rule is that its Chinese owner presents a real threat to the country's security. In the words of a senior agency official reported by AFP:

"It's clear that the Chinese government has for years been pursuing large, structured datasets of Americans through all sorts of manner, including malicious cyber activity; including efforts to buy that data from data brokers and others, and including efforts to build sophisticated AI models that can utilize that data."

Department of Justice.

TikTok, counting down?

In April, President Biden initiated legislation to force TikTok to sever ties with its Chinese parent. The social network has until mid-January of next year to find a buyer. If it fails to do so, it will become banned throughout the United States.

The company says that the requirement is unenforceable, let alone on time. The Administration could extend the deadline, but so far there is no indication that it plans to do so.

ByteDance also stated that it does not plan to sell TikTok. To avoid this - and also to avoid being blocked - it will have to defend its case at the oral hearings in September. In case it loses this judicial instance, it would still have one recourse left: the Supreme Court of Justice.

It was the audio playback platform itself who confirmed the news. It did so by revealing the lists of most listened to podcasts during this week and it was there where it was confirmed that, in first place, was "The Tucker Carlson Show," followed closely by "The Joe Rogan Experience."

https://twitter.com/VozMediaUSA/status/1816582422026236267

Rounding out the top five is Alex Cooper's podcast titled "Call Her Daddy," followed by one from Tana Mongeau and Brooke Schofield titled "Cancelled" and finishing the top five is "The Dan Bongino Show."

https://twitter.com/Shawn_Farash/status/1816646251267444894

A milestone that he achieved, in large part, due to the number of replays. As noted by The Daily Caller, the latest episode premiered by the former Fox News host managed to accumulate, during its first four hours, more than 160,000 views, which gave it a new record on the digital listening platform.

The episode featured Dr. Ben Carson and was a success not only on Spotify, but also on Apple Music, where it obtained fourth place on the list of most listened to podcasts on that digital platform.

In contrast to Joe Rogan, this record was achieved in just a few months, since Tucker Carlson launched his podcast last December, while Joe Rogan has been hosting his podcast since 2009.

And that makes it even more relevant, since he has not only surpassed Joe Rogan's product, a podcast that, according to Newsmax has 14.5 million subscribers on Spotify, but in less than a year after its launch, which is why the platform in charge of broadcasting the program and owned by Tucker Carlson thanked its followers for the support received in recent months.

https://twitter.com/TCNetwork/status/1816582233605771633

Meta has taken down 200 pages and 5,700 Facebook groups, all from Nigeria, that gave instructions for running such scams, for example advising how to talk to victims and offered scripts, as well as collections of photos that the scammers could use to impersonate someone else and create fake accounts.

Meta also said it found some of these accounts through new signals that were added to automatic detection tools to find malicious behavior. "First of all, this goes without saying that financial sextortion is a horrific crime and can have devastating consequences," Antigone Davis, Meta's global director of security told CBS News.

A recent study titled: "Trends in Financial Sextortion: An Investigation of Sextortion Reports in NCMEC CyberTipline Data" from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which analyzed more than 15 million reports made to CyberTipline between 2020 and 2023 to identify cases of sextortion and examine the scale and nature of financially motivated sextortion, claims that most sextortion scams originate in Nigeria or the Ivory Coast.

Media

Facebook reports thousands of sextortion scams from Nigeria targeting American men

VozMedia Staff

Meta said it found that scammers send out solicitations to many people and get few responses. Some of the Facebook accounts, pages and groups removed by Meta under its Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy, were run by Yahoo Boys, a cybercriminal group based primarily in Nigeria.

Davis advised users to pay particular attention to "if somebody sends you an image first, that is often to try to bait you to send an image second, or try to gain trust and build trust." He added that "this is one of those areas where if you have any suspicion, I would urge caution."

Based on the growth of this type of crime, the company advised reviewing Facebook Messenger privacy settings to filter the people that users can receive messages from or block people who are not their Facebook friends.

According to Fox News, a photo editor at a major news outlet is calling on his colleagues at other media outlets to not prominently employ the now iconic image of Trump, bloodied and cheering on supporters with his fist raised high, because it is "dangerous."

The name of this professional has not been made public and neither has the media he works for.

A few days after the assassination attempt, Trump has been seen with his right ear covered with gauze. The bullet grazed his ear, leaving him with a wound.

"X designs and exploits its interface for 'verified accounts' with the 'blue check mark' in a way that does not correspond to industry practice and misleads users. Since anyone can sign up for this 'verified' status, it negatively affects users' ability to make free and informed decisions about the authenticity of the accounts and content they interact with. There is evidence of motivated malicious actors abusing the 'verified account' to mislead users," the commission wrote in the report published on its official website.

https://twitter.com/vestager/status/1811723602288374086

The commission also explained that, according to its reviews, X does not respect the required transparency in advertising due to its failure to provide reliable and accessible digital display ad content. Instead, it establishes design features and access barriers that render the content unfit for its intended purpose of transparency vis-à-vis users.

https://twitter.com/vestager/status/1811723602288374086

"X does not provide access to its public data to researchers consistent with the conditions set forth in the Digital Services Act. In particular, X prohibits eligible researchers from independently accessing its public data, for example by scraping, as stated in its terms of service," the commission added.

Similarly, the commission indicated that if the preliminary views were ultimately confirmed, it would adopt a non-compliance decision in which it would declare social network X to be in breach of sections 25, 39 and 40 (12) of the Digital Services Act. Such a decision could entail fines of up to 6% of the provider's total annual worldwide turnover and order the provider to take measures to address the infringement.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk was quick to react to the news. The tycoon, owner of X, claimed that the European Commission offered the platform a secret deal that he branded illegal. The tycoon argued that the EC proposed that they censor users quietly and without telling anyone so they would not be fined.

"The other platforms accepted that deal. X did not," Musk expressed on his X account.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1811783320839008381

Thierry Breton, European Commissioner for the Internal Market, posted a similar message. Breton referred to the report and said that if the information is confirmed, they will impose fines and "we will demand significant changes." This generated an exchange of messages between the two on the social network.

Musk replied, "We look forward to a very public battle in court, so that the people of Europe can know the truth."

Subsequently, Breton posted another message in which he assured that it is not true that they proposed a secret agreement with the social network and emphasized that the report "established regulatory procedures."

"Up to you to decide whether to offer commitments or not. That is how rule of law procedures work," Breton maintained.

https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1811811489889517697

https://twitter.com/JacquiHeinrich/status/1808885777234845792

In the editorial, the media outlet's board published a brief but powerful speech where Biden hypothetically decides to withdraw from the presidential race claiming that he no longer has enough energy to stay in office and take on Donald Trump in this election campaign.

"Over the past few days, I have been reflecting on all this. My season of service is nearing its close. This was a hard truth to face. But it is the natural course of things — as evident as the progression from spring to summer, from fall to winter. This is why I have decided to withdraw from the campaign for president of the United States." reads the board-written speech, where a fictional Biden quotes George Washington, who had no problem handing over power to his vice president John Adams at the end of his second term.

"This moment echoes one George Washington faced as he approached the end of his second term. Fear of instability and of the unknown, of who would come next, counseled against risking a premature departure. John Adams was pugnacious. Thomas Jefferson was radical. But Washington stood aside, though the Constitution at the time did not require it," wrote the WaPo board. "He looked past ambition and self-regard to what the nation needed most at that moment, declaring through his actions that the United States would not depend on one indispensable man. Power would be transferred regularly and peacefully."

The WaPo's fictional speech is released at a time when Biden is being pressured incessantly to step aside. Democratic congressmen, billionaire donors and dozens of media outlets are calling for his official withdrawal after his performance at the presidential debate in Atlanta, Georgia.

Finally, in this hypothetical retirement speech, the WaPo editorial board even had the courage to map out a route forward for the Democratic Party: an open convention where state delegates choose Biden's potential replacement, who could be, for example, Vice President Kamala Harris herself.

"The Democratic National Committee, senior Democratic leaders and I have agreed on an orderly process to select our next nominee, which will include debates between now and our convention in August. My vice president, Kamala Harris, has graciously and courageously agreed to participate. Though Democratic primary voters cannot be included at this late date, their delegates will make the final choice," declared the media board, which is being widely quoted on social media.