What do you call it when a hedge fund buys a local newspaper and squeezes it for revenue, laying off editors and reporters and selling off the papers downtown headquarters for conversion into luxury condos or a boutique hotel?

The devastation has become common enough that some observers have resorted to shorthand for what collectively amounts to an extinction-level event. One former editor calls it a harvesting strategy; Margaret Sullivan, in her new book, Ghosting the News, calls it strip-mining. Like the climate emergency that Sullivan mentions by way of comparison, the decimation of local news yields two phenomena that happen to feed off each other: The far-reaching effects are cataclysmic, and its hard to convince a significant number of people that they ought to care.

Disinformation and fake news bring to mind scheming operatives, Russian troll farms and noisy propaganda; stories about them are titillating enough to garner plenty of attention. But what Sullivan writes about is a real-news problem the shuttering of more than 2,000 American newspapers since 2004, and the creation of news deserts, or entire counties with no local news outlets at all.

She begins her book with the example of a 2019 story from The Buffalo News about a suburban police chief who received an unexplained $100,000 payout when he abruptly retired. The article didnt win any awards or even appear on the front page, Sullivan writes. It merely was the kind of day-in-and-day-out local reporting that makes secretive town officials unhappy.

Merely and day-in-and-day-out; Sullivan also describes the article as routine-enough fare. Ghosting the News is a brisk and pointed tribute to painstaking, ordinary and valuable work. As the media columnist for The Washington Post and the former public editor for The New York Times, Sullivan has spent most of the past decade writing for a national audience, but for 32 years before that she worked at The Buffalo News, starting as a summer intern and eventually becoming the newspapers editor.

Sullivan recalls the flush days when the paper boasted a newsroom fully staffed by journalists who could combine their calling with a career. Then came the internet, which siphoned off attention and revenue; after that, the deluge of the 2008 financial crisis, which swept away the vestiges of print advertising. Sullivan cut the payroll of the paper by offering buyouts. She got rid of the full-time art critic and eliminated the Sunday magazine a particularly wrenching decision because my then-husband was the magazines editor.

The Buffalo News was owned by Warren Buffetts Berkshire Hathaway until the beginning of this year, when Buffett declared it was time for him to leave the newspaper industry and sold his portfolio of 31 dailies and 49 weeklies. Buffett said he believes in the importance of journalism, but he doesnt consider himself a philanthropist. He got into the business because it made money, with fat profit margins in the good years reaching 30 percent. When he bought The Buffalo News in 1977, he decided that the city could sustain only one daily, and he knocked out the competition until his was the last paper standing. A monopoly newspaper was like an unregulated toll bridge: With a loyal and captive market, he could raise rates whenever he wanted.

Advertisers may have been peddling baubles or junk food, but their cash funded serious journalism the kind that could afford to send a reporter to, say, every municipal board meeting. People knew that, the former editor of the once mighty Youngstown Vindicator told Sullivan, and they behaved. This watchdog function had tangible benefits for subscribers and nonsubscribers alike. When local reporting waned, Sullivan writes, municipal borrowing costs went up. Local news outlets provide the due diligence that bondholders often count on. Without the specter of a public shaming, corruption is freer to flourish.

Sullivan surveys the alternative models that have sprung up in response to journalisms ecosystem collapse. Theres the nonprofit reporting outfit ProPublica, and a news brigade of volunteer journalists in Michigan. Sullivans own employer was acquired by Jeff Bezos in 2013 for $250 million. Jeff Bezos has not attempted to influence coverage at The Washington Post, she writes, though billionaire owners arent always so hands-off. The casino magnate Sheldon Adelson bought the well-respected Review-Journal in Las Vegas, which was known for its investigative pieces on the casino industry, and leaned on its staff to produce puff pieces about his properties instead. Adelson turned the watchdog into a lap dog.

The situation is so dire, Sullivan says, that she entertains what was once unthinkable the possibility of government-subsidized journalistic outlets. She calls the argument for government help not unreasonable, even if she hasnt been entirely convinced yet. Her attempts to strike a hopeful note can sound unsatisfying because of how problematic all the solutions are. Nonprofit start-ups have the benefit of being nimbler, Sullivan says, though what does nimbler often mean in practice? A non-unionized newsroom staffed by 24-year-olds who can be paid junior-level salaries and, unlike veteran journalists three decades older, wouldnt necessarily be ruined by a layoff?

Sullivan is left to highlight the essential work that local reporters do, emphasizing how The Palm Beach Post and The Miami Herald continued to pursue the story of Jeffrey Epsteins sex trafficking long after others had decided that the abuse scandal had gone stale. More recently, local journalists recorded the influx of unidentified federal troops into Portland, Ore., where they were seizing and detaining people without telling them why or what was happening to them; the example was too late to be included in Sullivans book, and it only goes to show how critical and relentless the need is for reporters on the ground.

Ghosting the News concludes with a soaring quote from the Italian theorist Antonio Gramsci about pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will, but the local reporter in Sullivan follows it up with a more immediate analogy: Even if no one seems to be coming to the rescue while your house is on fire, you still have to get out your garden hose and bucket, and keep acting as if the fire trucks are on the way.

See more here:

Yes, Fake News Is a Problem. But Theres a Real News Problem, Too. - The New York Times

The president did not identify which officials from former President George W. Bushs administration had spoken dismissively of the alleged Russian bounties, but he told reporters outside the White House on Wednesday that former Secretary of State Colin Powell says its not true.

Powell criticized the medias initial reaction to the bounty story earlier this month, telling MSNBC that our military commanders on the ground did not think that it was as serious a problem as the newspapers were reporting and television was reporting.

News of the bounties came to light last month after The New York Times first reported that U.S. intelligence officials concluded the Kremlins military intelligence unit offered to pay Taliban-linked militants in Afghanistan to kill American troops and other coalition forces there.

Top administration officials have been inconsistent in their explanations of the extent to which Trump was briefed on the bounties, but POLITICO reported earlier this month that the White House told congressional lawmakers the relevant intelligence was included in the presidents daily written brief in late February.

Trump claimed Tuesday that the bounty intelligence never reached my desk because intelligence community officials didnt think it was real, adding: If it reached my desk, I would have done something about it.

The president also professed, however, that he reads his daily brief, contradicting the defenses of White House allies who claimed Trump only declined to take more forceful action against Russia because he does not regularly review the written intelligence document.

I read a lot. You know, I read a lot, Trump said. They like to say I dont read. I read a lot. I comprehend extraordinarily well, probably better than anybody that youve interviewed in a long time. I read a lot.

Trump is known to prefer receiving verbal briefings, and his public schedule reveals a sporadic record of in-person sessions with intelligence officials unlike the agendas of past presidents who were briefed daily and usually first thing in the morning.

Usually its once a day, or at least two or three times a week, Trump said of his briefing schedule.

Trumps remarks Tuesday represented the White Houses first public confirmation that he did not discuss the bounties when he spoke with Putin last Thursday.

According to a White House readout of the call, the two leaders talked about efforts to defeat the coronavirus pandemic while continuing to reopen global economies, as well as critical bilateral and global issues.

Trump also reiterated his hope of avoiding an expensive three-way arms race between China, Russia, and the United States and looked forward to progress on upcoming arms control negotiations in Vienna, the White House said.

On Tuesday, Trump said he and Putin had a call talking about nuclear proliferation, which is a very big subject where they would like to do something, and so would I. We discussed numerous things.

But as for the alleged Russian bounties, Trump said: I have never discussed it with him, no. I would. I have no problem with it.

Both White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and the president have refused to comment in recent days on whether the bounties came up in the latest conversation between Trump and Putin.

At a White House briefing last Friday, McEnany told reporters she was not on the call and that the bounty intelligence is unverified still to this day, claiming there are dissenting opinions within the intel community.

We dont talk about what we discuss, but we had plenty of discussion, and I think it was very productive, Trump said Monday of his conversation with Putin, during a visit to a vaccine production plant in North Carolina.

Trump also was asked Tuesday about U.S. intelligence that Russia had been supplying weapons to the Taliban, and he justified the alleged Kremlin arms program by pointing to U.S. support for Afghan fighters during the Soviet Unions war there in the 1980s.

Well, we supplied weapons when they were fighting Russia, too. You know, when they were fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan, Trump said.

Trump suggested he had not been formally briefed on intelligence suggesting that Russia was arming the Taliban intelligence endorsed by Trumps own former commander of U.S. and NATO-led international forces in Afghanistan, retired Army Gen. John W. Nicholson.

Im just saying, we did that, too, Trump said. I dont know. I didnt ask Nicholson about that. He was there for a long time. Didnt have great success because, you know, he was there before me. And then ultimately, I made a change.

Trump said he had heard Russia was arming Taliban fighters, but added: Again, its never reached my desk.

The presidents likening of recent Russian activity in Afghanistan to decades-old U.S. foreign policy is reminiscent of other statements Trump has issued in apparent defense of Putins authoritarian regime.

When he was asked in 2015 about the high-profile murders of several journalists who had been critical of the Russian leader, Trump memorably told MSNBC: Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also.

And after Bill OReilly, then of Fox News, characterized Putin as a killer in an interview with the president in 2017, Trump responded: You got a lot of killers. What, you think our countrys so innocent?

Read the original post:

A lot of people said its a fake issue: Trump confirms he didnt raise Russian bounties with Putin - POLITICO

We live in an era where the phrase "fake news" is thrown around every time someone doesnt like, or trust, the facts in an article. But lets take a minute and talk about what fake news is and isnt.

Facts matter.

Theyre the basis of what journalists do every day. Find out the facts, report them and inform readers. Its a basic tenant of journalism.

We live in an era where the phrase "fake news" is thrown around every time someone doesnt like, or trust, the facts in an article.

Remember, we do read the comments on The Times Facebook page.

But lets take a minute and talk about what fake news is and isnt.

Fake news isnt a story that doesnt agree with your opinion or politics.

It isnt an opinion column that talks about politics that differ from yours.

In fact, if a story aligns perfectly with your political ideology, you might want to fact check it for accuracy.

Fake news happens when a writer we cringe at calling these bloggers and fabricators reporters uses a sensational headline that doesnt reflect any truth. When there are made up facts in a story, or opinions that are stated as fact. When there are allegations made with absolutely no sourcing.

One of the most important basic parts of a news article is the source its incumbent on reporters to tell readers where theyre getting this information from. Its about transparency, and its one of the biggest ways we as journalists can prove you can trust us.

We know that at this point in the editorial, at least a handful of you are rolling your eyes.

We make mistakes, thats true. Our reporters and editors arent perfect. But not a single person on The Times staff sets out to deliberately mislead readers. And thats what fake news does.

In the past few weeks, our reporters have had to spend more time than usual chasing fake news stories to set the record straight. There was the wildly inaccurate TV news story claiming that the commissioners were shutting down all bars and restaurants in the county. What actually happened was state officials talked with leaders in four suburban counties, including Beaver, about putting some form of restrictions on dining and gathering. Instead, they opted to watch COVID case data for another week before putting a more relaxed plan in place statewide.

Then, there were the social media posts from legislators across the region about people receiving positive COVID test results when they never even were tested. One senator chimed in with a story about how some nurses had submitted tests swabbed on fruit and got a positive.

Then, this week, there was the news blog that posted unsubstantiated headlines claiming Beaver County, among others, would be moved back to "red."

We asked state Rep. Aaron Bernstine, who shared some of those stories on his various social media accounts, how he vets what he shares to his constituents. His answer didnt give us a lot of confidence. Bernstine told our reporter that he shares things he thinks could impact his constituents and then updates the Facebook post after he finds out more information.

But theres a problem with that method, one that everyone should keep in mind when using social media.

By sharing rumors, conspiracy theories and other unverified information, youre pushing all the toothpaste out of the tube. And no matter what you do, you cant put it back in.

When you have 30,000 followers, no amount of edits to your post will change those who saw or shared the original information. And thats a problem.

Just remember facts matter. When youre sharing that unbelievable news story from that site youve never heard of before, think twice about it.

After all, you dont want toothpaste all over your timeline.

Original post:

Our View: Fake news leaves a mess in its wake - The Times

Image Source : PIXABAY

COVID-19 fake news has spreading like the virus itself

People who get their news from social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are more likely to have misperceptions about COVID-19 pandemic, warn researchers. The study, published in the journal Misinformation Review, revealed that those that consume more traditional news media have fewer misperceptions and are more likely to follow public health recommendations like social distancing.

"Platforms like Twitter and Facebook are increasingly becoming the primary sources of news and misinformation for Canadians and people around the world," said study co-author Aengus Bridgman from the McGill University in Canada.

In the context of a crisis like COVID-19, however, there is good reason to be concerned about the role that the consumption of social media is playing in boosting misperceptions," Bridgman added. For the findings, the research team looked at the behavioural effects of exposure to misinformation by combining social media analysis, news analysis, and survey research.

They combed through millions of tweets, thousands of news articles, and the results of a nationally representative survey of Canadians to answer three questions. Those three questions were: How prevalent is COVID-19 misinformation on social media and in traditional news media? Does it contribute to misperceptions about COVID-19? And does it affect behaviour? Results showed that, compared to traditional news media, false or inaccurate information about COVID-19 is circulated more on social media platforms like Twitter.

The researchers point to a big difference in the behaviours and attitudes of people who get their news from social media versus news media - even after taking into account demographics as well as factors like scientific literacy and socio-economic differences. Canadians who regularly consume social media are less likely to observe social distancing and to perceive Covid-19 as a threat, while the opposite is true for people that get their information from news media.

"There is growing evidence that misinformation circulating on social media poses public health risks. This makes it even more important for policymakers and social media platforms to flatten the curve of misinformation," said study co-author Taylor Owen.

Latest technology reviews, news and more

Latest News on Coronavirus

Fight against Coronavirus: Full coverage

Go here to see the original:

People on social media more inclined to believe Coronavirus fake news: Study - India TV News