Media

A recent article on Roadless (“99% of comments”) reminded me of one of the reasons I started NCFP (the predecessor of The Smokey Wire) was due to what I saw as reporting that was inaccurate.  You can check out this piece where I discuss a New York Times article (in 2012).  Whoops, I was still employed by the FS in a D Admin and questioning folks like the New York Times and Pew.. maybe not the brightest idea in terms of long-term employment. 

My explanation for this (being a charitable soul) was that our issues were too complicated to make it into a newspaper-sized story.  In reality, though, as time has gone on, it appears that many media outlets’ reporting was, in fact, biased.  Various individuals I know were interviewed and then the interviews not used if they didn’t fit the pre-existing narrative.  As we’ve seen recently, complex arrays of positions on different land management issues  have been reduced to “environmentalists vs. the timber industry” for the Forest Service and “environmentalists vs. oil and gas” for BLM.  

Sometimes “fits the narrative” and “sounds vaguely plausible” seem to be all that a story requires. But as more and more of those stories have been published on more and more topics, and those run against peoples’ knowledge and lived experience, much of the media has lost trust with the public.  This is nothing new since the days of Aesop and the story of “the boy who cried wolf.”

For those of you who don’t follow this, there are two stories that show the larger perspective. First, the results of a recent Gallup poll.

Americans’ confidence in the mass media has edged down to a new low, with just 28% expressing a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in newspapers, television and radio to report the news fully, accurately and fairly. This is down from 31% last year and 40% five years ago.

Meanwhile, seven in 10 U.S. adults now say they have “not very much” confidence (36%) or “none at all” (34%).

Second is the news of Bari Weiss’s deal with Paramount and CBS News. I am a long-term subscriber to the Free Press and appreciate greatly the effort and vision, if not always the execution. Here’s Bari’s take on what the media universe:

The Free Press uncovered an America hiding in plain sight. People who want to be surprised. People who want to learn. People who are open to changing their minds in the face of new facts. People who believe that curiosity is a virtue and who crave common sense in a world that feels upside down. People who resist the warmth of political tribalism even as they seek community with one another. People who want logic and wit, not conspiracy theories and demoralization.

Most of all, Free Pressers are people who want to face the truth. Because we understand that knowing it is the only way to improve lives—our own and those of our fellow citizens.

If I could write better, it would be equally true of TSW.

If you want to look at some analysis of what went wrong, you could read Mir’s book on “post-journalism” or this piece by Martin Gurri. Or Uri Berliner’s (formerly of NPR) piece in The Free Press.

But those of us on the ground, as it were, don’t need talking or writing heads to tell us what we have observed.

But what to do about this opening towards a media focused on fair reporting? It seems to me that there are two things we can do (1) provide helpful suggestions to reporters and editors, by examining what is covered, what is not covered, how the story is told, who is interviewed and who is not interviewed, places where skepticism or questioning would be useful, and so on.  I used to do that more during Colorado Roadless.  Equally important is (2) finding and identifying stories that are fair enough to reflect and facts and attempt to understand the different points of view.

Because, after all, if we see our own countryfolk as “the enemy” and don’t try to understand them, it’s not a good path to be on, even if it makes more money for some media outlets and advertisers.  Truth, compassion, listening to others.. we can and do try for all these things right here.

The website Public Domain published a draft version of a strategic plan for the Department of the Interior.

Here’s what the Department of the Interior said about the leakage:

“It is beyond unacceptable that an internal document in the draft/deliberative process is being shared with the media before a decision point has been made,” an Interior Department spokesperson wrote in response to queries from Public Domain. “Not only is this unacceptable behavior, it is irresponsible for a media outlet to publish a draft document. We will take this leak of an internal, pre-decisional document very seriously and find out who is responsible. The internal document is marked draft/deliberative for a reason – it’s not final nor ready for release.”

Nothing sounds too surprising in the Public Domain summary, and it says that when the Department releases a draft we’ll all have an opportunity to comment.

DOI will seek input from the public, tribes and Congress from May to July and plans to finalize its strategy by October, according to the draft.

I thought that this might be a good time to discuss leaking to the media and to others.  Personally, I’ve never done this.   I have worked on projects whose drafts were regularly leaked to outside groups, but not necessarily the media.  It seems to me that it happens more in some Admins than others.. this could be due to the political predilections of employees, and/or that of the media. I wonder whether anyone has ever studied that question?

In what kind of situations would you consider that leaking should be done?  Why?

In case you aren’t following media news, there was a recent Gallup poll on confidence in various institutions. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in that sector.

The news media is the least trusted group among 10 U.S. civic and political institutions involved in the democratic process. The legislative branch of the federal government, consisting of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, is rated about as poorly as the media, with 34% trusting it.

In contrast, majorities of U.S. adults express at least a fair amount of trust in their local government to handle local problems (67%), their state government to address state problems (55%), and the American people as a whole when it comes to making judgments under our democratic system about the issues facing the country (54%).

But perhaps this is simply a transition, and more trustworthy sources of information will replace the media as we know it.

I see folks like The Hotshot Wakeup as a vanguard of a new and better media ecosystem.  For one thing, he knows the territory, knows the people, and has been around for awhile.  Trust is something that develops over time, when he turns out to be correct and when he acknowledges that he got it wrong.  So it makes more sense to trust humans rather than institutions.  We can trust District Ranger X and not “the Forest Service.”

So let’s look at some THW stories and how other media covered the same stories.

1. Arrested burn boss.

MM (mainstream media) “remember Bundys” “employees will be afraid to conduct prescribed burns.”

THW “things got out of control, probably a one off.”

2.  North Carolina FEMA threats

MM repeats rumor (?) of large group,  focused on FS being called off.

THW reports in real time that FS folks were called back the next day, turned out to be one person threatening.

3. Oregon Department of Forestry

Apparently there were articles in the MSM about ODF.  Three managers called THW to share their side of the story.

They also all agreed that this was a major distraction from the real issues with ODF right now. They are coming off a record wildfire season in Oregon and have major budgetary issues. Last month, they had to ask the state for emergency funds to continue funding the agency for a total of $42 million. Their employees just finished a rammer season, and the first week back in the office, they are all being bombarded with this story instead of focusing on close out, end of season duties, and decompression.

They saw this as an opportunity for media folks on both sides of the political aisle to use this story as ammo during a very contentious election cycle, and they were not very happy about that. Quite frankly, the timing couldn’t have been worse for the agency and their employees.

And that’s it. That’s the story from three managers inside ODF who feel like the agency they love and have spent their lives working for has been dragged into the mainstream media for political gain on both sides. So much so that they reached out and asked me to tell their story.

4. Bridger Aerospace

MM- Here’s a link to the Wall Street Journal op-ed on how political forces are trying to take down a fire aviation company,

Yet the closer Mr. Sheehy came to winning the nomination, the more hostile the environment became for Bridger. Late last year the company started getting strange inquiries from lenders and regulators—leading some managers to suspect that people were lodging accusations against it in hope of triggering lenders to pull loans or provoking a public regulatory rebuke.

After Bridger weathered that storm, the assault went public. In early August, NBC and the Washington Post ran negative articles a day apart making strikingly similar suggestions of a coming Bridger financial collapse, based in part on the anything-can-happen disclaimers that public companies are required to file. NBC also quoted Marc Cohodes—a short seller who has praised Sen. Elizabeth Warren as “great” and who routinely bashes Mr. Sheehy and Donald Trump—accusing Bridger of existing “for insiders and the Park Avenue billionaires at Blackstone.”

Mr. Cohodes, who owns a Montana home, then made public a letter he’d sent demanding the federal government probe Bridger over “false statements” on a federal form, and asking Gallatin County commissioners to investigate Bridger’s use of local bonds it received. The letter was signed by seven other Montana businesspeople, most donors to Democrats and to Mr. Tester. “The bottom line is [Bridger’s] going to go broke,” Mr. Cohodes told a Montana outlet.

The negative headlines mostly failed to explain that a Bridger employee had accidentally ticked the “SDB” (socially disadvantaged business) box, instead of the “SDVOSB” (service-disabled veteran-owned business) box on a federal form that tracks demographics. Or that the Gallatin Commission issued a statement that it had received a “politically motivated” inquiry that seemed to “stem from a misunderstanding of conduit private activity bonds.

********************

The Tester campaign has amplified the attacks and has an ad claiming the company is “failing.” This is appalling, given the attacks are a huge hit on employees, some of whom are veterans and all of whom were issued stock. Local residents who invested in a hometown company have also been harmed.

Planes are capital-intensive and Bridger does have debt; it’s also growing and has posted record revenue and contract awards. Bridger Chairman Jeffrey Kelter says in an interview that Bridger “is a Montana company with 200 employees and a mission to protect lives and property, whose growth trajectory has been consistently great.” He points to a board of directors with heavy hitters from banking and investment, and notes this has been a “very, very good year for Bridger.” After decades in executive roles, he finds “for a small company to get this level of negative attention is unprecedented.”

Mr. Sheehy stepped away from Bridger in July to minimize any conflicts and focus on his campaign. But he’s unhappy that Bridger employees are bearing the fallout of these attacks. “Certain things should be out of bounds in politics,” he says, “A sitting senator trying to destroy a business in the state he is supposed to represent is one of them.”

THW reached out to both sides, Sheehy spoke to him and none of the many Tester offices answered his requests for comments.

I totally understand the political angle, and that Montana is important for the whole country because of the Senate and so on.  I guess political entities have bought into the idea that “the ends justify the means”. If we circle back to the media, it means that we basically can’t trust them to achieve escape velocity from any politically convenient narrative.

***********

As THW shows, it’s not really that difficult to listen to both sides, be even-handed and let the chips (so to speak) fall where they may. It may be a tough business model, though, as in our world there are many foundations and not-for-profits seeding MSM with stories that support their worldview.

And yet, reporters’ knowledge and experience over time can provide essential context for our understanding, plus are closer to people on the ground observing situations in real time.   Bottom line: I see a much more vibrant, diverse and trustworthy news ecosystem struggling to be born.

Is everything political? It seems to be that politics is one filter to look at stories.  Climate is another filter.  A filter can help you see aspects of things.. on the other hand, it can filter out other aspects of things.  Kind of like the story of the blind people and the elephant.

As it turns out, the WaPo has hired political and climate reporters, so we can expect more of that. And we can expect the WaPo to encroach upon stories that would normally be “environmental disagreement” stories. In fact, they now have a newsletter called “your weekly non political political stories.”

If you’re new here: The Daily 202 generally focuses on national politics and foreign policy. But as passionate believers in local news, and in redefining “politics” as something that hits closer to home than Beltway “Senator X Hates Senator Y” stories, we try to bring you a weekly mix of pieces with significant local, national or international importance.

I always say we need to beware when organizations redefine commonly used English words. It’s hard to imagine any activity that might not have some kind of political or climate angle, but does the story benefit from that filter or obfuscate? That’s for us to examine and decide.

The story that intrigued me was the Maine Lobster vs. Monterey Bay Aquarium issue.

And the WaPo’s view of why this is a political story..

The politics: This has it all. A locally vital economic resource, interstate commerce, environmentalism. Trade-offs.

It’s fascinating. What might have been a business story, or an environmental story, is now a .. political story. No thanks, WaPo.

At the same time, I think we need to look at possible political angles for the behavior of.. well… politicians and agencies in the Executive Branch. We don’t know, or at least I don’t for sure, but I think they need to be considered. Especially when decisions don’t seem to make sense otherwise. Not that political decisions are bad, but understanding motives is probably good.

As promised, this is the third of three posts on the media.  Unlike TSW, most media outlets need to make money.  So to do good work, they might be tempted to hire “climate” reporters, or “political” reporters.  Because climate and politics get people engaged, and thereby more clicks; even if framing issues that way unintentionally changes the way they are reported.

Standing against this undesirable trend, as far as I can tell, is  Energy and Environment News.  They still have had the funding to hire people who keep up with, for example, our federal lands stuff.  Which is excellent.  So a shout-out to those reporters.

And they have a place to send corrections “E&E News strives to promptly correct errors in material published online. To request a correction, send an email to..”

E&E News was bought out by Politico. Hopefully that doesn’t encourage reporters to take a more political slant. They reassure us that “E&E News is a distinct brand,” so let’s hope they continue with that.

Nevertheless, there is a bit of a structural problem with this.  People cost money.  So if you have journalists with specialized skills, you need to charge for their time.  So..

I know one member of an NGO who is frequently called by reporters (if I mentioned the topic, it might give hizzer away).  However, the NGO hizzer works with can’t afford a subscription to E&E News, so hizzer has to ask other people, including me,  for copies of the article (to be sure, when I ask the reporters directly they have been helpful).  If this reminds you of academic publishing without open access… well, it reminds me of that too.

Folks from another (small) NGO told me that E&E News recently asked them for $4000 for a subscription for a year. As to The Smokey Wire, I filled out the form and the marketing people never even called me. But that was a while back.

Fortunately for us, there are enough TSW readers from large organizations who can afford subscriptions that ultimately for us, as of right now, it’s not a serious problem.  Still, we would discuss their reporting more if we had better access.

Here’s their list of “notable subscribers”

Notable subscribers

I know that Politico has programs for “diversity, equity and inclusion” internally. But what about externally?  How do for-profit corporations with good intentions make sure that their products are accessible to the less well off financially? How do they struggle with this conundrum?

My other thought is that philanthropic organizations spend millions (at least) “communicating” about climate change.  I think to be more accurate, these campaigns message the beliefs of the folks donating.  But with the passage of the IRA, it seems like we need to turn from talking/writing/messaging to actually building.  Which will require good information, discussion, two-way communication, and trust.

So as for me, if I were a philanthropist, I would instead use the funds to build a sliding scale for small NGO’s, and even individuals that would be more affordable.  If all people could get the same kind of quality information, in my view, and create an environment for open discussion, we will ultimately get farther down the climate road faster and with more stronger relationships with each other.  Also if less-well-off NGO’s had access to these stories, they could help with correcting errors and providing context to reporters. Win-win-win.  Any philanthropists out there?

This is the second post of three on media.  The first post, Monday, was on Gerth’s piece in the Columbia Journalism Review that raised issues of whether the Times was following its own rules, and how such outlets might increase trust- via various forms of accountability and transparency.  It looks like Gerth’s piece was posted on January 30.

In this post, we’ll take a look at a WaPo opinion piece by a former executive editor  “Newsrooms that move beyond “objectivity” can build trust.” It also appears to have been posted on January 30.

But increasingly, reporters, editors and media critics argue that the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality. They point out that the standard was dictated over decades by male editors in predominantly White newsrooms and reinforced their own view of the world. They believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.

As a veteran of many TSW discussions, I agree that individual and diverse perspectives are important in the newsroom, as everywhere else.  And that is how we jointly make a world, by sharing our own truths and seeking the outlines of the bigger truth, as in the old blind men and the elephant story.  As Wikipedia says, in that ancient parable, the moral is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people’s limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.

Let’s parse out the last sentence.  The subject seems to be “the concept of journalistic objectivity” which “negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.” So it sounds like he is arguing:

1. We should trust what  journalists say.
2. Journalists no longer need to explain other peoples’ points of view because
3. Their truth is more true than other peoples’ truth.

And we know that because they earnestly believe it to be so.

Sorry, this does not build my trust.

Then Downie goes on to add some more practical suggestions that might help build trust:

Newsroom staff diversity should reflect the communities being covered — not just gender and ethnic diversity but also diversity of economic, educational, geographic and social backgrounds. Inclusive newsrooms should encourage their journalists to speak up and be heard by their colleagues and leaders in making decisions about coverage.

News media should also be as transparent as possible about their newsgathering decisions and processes. When possible, they should hire or designate an editor to field and act on reader complaints and questions.

Responsible news organizations need to develop core values by having candid, inclusive and open conversations. Making these values public could well forge a stronger connection between journalists and the public.

The Alaska Roadless writing I did last week reminded me of how difficult it must be to be a journalist in our space. I worked on Colorado Roadless for years and it’s still complicated.  And simplifying tends to degenerate to good guys and bad guys. Not to speak of the fact that explanations are too lengthy and most people aren’t interested to that extent.  To which I would add Friedman’s Law of Natural Resource/Environmental Conflicts: there are always more than two sides.  With a corollary: If someone reports on only two, they are missing the picture.

Bottom line… a big shout-out to journalists who cover our stuff.  We know it’s not easy.  And an offer- my virtual door is always open to reporters who want a glimpse into the different perspectives and possible sources on any related issue.  I’ve been impressed by the quality of the discussions I’ve had with newbies (and the usual reporter suspects) in this space and want to make sure that you all feel welcome.

That being said- I’d like to talk about three things that came across my desk in the last few weeks that have to do with journalism institutions. I understand that many of these institutions are under a great deal of financial pressure (and of course transfer that to their workers), so I am sympathetic.  Today’s post is on the  Columbia Journalism Review piece by Jeff Gerth.

I recommend.. don’t read commentary on it.. just read it if you’re interested. It’s not that long.  If you do, you will be amazed and tired and impressed by how many documents, phone calls and other information Gerth sorted through. The key part for me was the Afterword.  It’s written by someone who obviously really cares about the profession of journalism, as I do, and I think all of us should. Because these are the folks who interpret our world for the public.

I think most reporting in our space doesn’t deal with anonymous sources or “people familiar with”, but others of Gerth’s recommendations might be relevant. The outlets NYT and WaPo, though, who do write in our space, do not come out very well in the Gerth’s story. Note what Gerth says is needed to build back trust.  I’m thinking a 90-day stand-down and a public process with sets of recommendations- whoops, that was prescribed fire.

I’ve avoided opining in my more than fifty years as a reporter. This time, however, I felt obligated to weigh in. Why? Because I am worried about journalism’s declining credibility and society’s increasing polarization. The two trends, I believe, are intertwined.

My main conclusion is that journalism’s primary missions, informing the public and holding powerful interests accountable, have been undermined by the erosion of journalistic norms and the media’s own lack of transparency about its work. This combination adds to people’s distrust about the media and exacerbates frayed political and social differences.

One traditional journalistic standard that wasn’t always followed in the Trump-Russia coverage is the need to report facts that run counter to the prevailing narrative. In January 2018, for example, the New York Times ignored a publicly available document showing that the FBI’s lead investigator didn’t think, after ten months of inquiry into possible Trump-Russia ties, that there was much there. This omission disserved Times readers. The paper says its reporting was thorough and “in line with our editorial standards.”

My last reporting project for the Times, in 2005, was an inquiry into US propaganda efforts abroad. I interviewed a former top CIA expert on behavior and propaganda, Jerrold Post, who told me that leaving important information out of a broadcast or story lowers public trust in the messenger because consumers inevitably find the missing information somewhere else. (And Post, who died a few years ago, spoke before the arrival of social media.)

Another axiom of journalism that was sometimes neglected in the Trump-Russia coverage was the failure to seek and reflect comment from people who are the subject of serious criticism. The Times guidelines call it a “special obligation.” Yet in stories by the Times involving such disparate figures as Joseph Mifsud (the Maltese academic who supposedly started the whole FBI inquiry), Christopher Steele (the former British spy who authored the dossier), and Konstantin Kilimnik (the consultant cited by some as the best evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump), the paper’s reporters failed to include comment from the person being criticized. The Times, in a statement, says some of the subjects were approached on occasion, yet the paper’s guidelines also call for their comments to be published.

Another exhibit is a familiar target: anonymous sources. I’ve used them myself, including, sparsely, in this piece. What’s different in the Trump era, however, is both the volume of anonymous sources and the misleading way they’re often described.

One frequent and vague catchphrase—“people (or person) familiar with”—is widely used by many journalists: the Times used it over a thousand times in stories involving Trump and Russia between October 2016 and the end of his presidency, according to a Nexis search. The last executive editor I worked for, Bill Keller, frowned on its use. He told the staff repeatedly the phrase was “so vague it could even mean the reporter.” The Times, in a statement to CJR, said, “We have strong rules in place governing the use of anonymous sources.” Other outlets mentioned in this piece declined to discuss their anonymous-sourcing practices.

Another anonymous-sourcing convention that was turbocharged in the Trump era was the use of more neutral descriptors like “government official” or “intelligence official” or “American official” to mask congressional leakers. A few reporters admitted that to me, but, of course, only anonymously. Here’s how it works. First, a federal agency like the CIA or FBI secretly briefs Congress. Then Democrats or Republicans selectively leak snippets. Finally, the story comes out, using vague attribution. “It was a problem for us,” Mike Kortan, the former FBI spokesman until 2018, told me. Kortan, who also worked in Congress, added: “We would brief Congress, try and give them a full picture with the negative stuff, and then a member of Congress can cherry-pick the information and the reporter doesn’t know they’ve been cherry-picked.” The typical reader or viewer is clueless.

My final concern, and frustration, was the lack of transparency by media organizations in responding to my questions. I reached out to more than sixty journalists; only about half responded. Of those who did, more than a dozen agreed to be interviewed on the record. However, not a single major news organization made available a newsroom leader to talk about their coverage.

My reporting has been criticized by journalists, from the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, in the 1980s, to Harper’s magazine in the 1990s and the Daily Beast in the 2000s. When I’ve had the opportunity to respond, which hasn’t always been the case, I’ve tried to engage. On a few occasions, I concluded the inquiring reporter wasn’t really open to what I had to say, so l let my story speak for itself.

But during this time, when the media is under extraordinary attack and widely distrusted, a transparent, unbiased, and accountable media is more needed than ever. It’s one of a journalist’s best tools to distinguish themselves from all the misinformation, gossip, and rumor that proliferates on the Web and then gets legitimized on occasion by politicians of all stripes, including Trump.

Most Americans (60 percent) say they want unbiased news sources. Yet 86 percent think the media is biased. The consequences of this mismatch are all too obvious: 83 percent of the audience for Fox News leans Republican while 91 percent of the readers of the New York Times lean Democratic.

Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told me of her concerns about news silos.

“If you are only getting your news from one source, you are getting a skewed view,” which, she said, “increases polarization” and “crowds out the room for compromise, because people base their views on these siloed news sources.” She added: “People don’t have time to deal with nuance, so they settle on a position and everything else tends to become unacceptable.”

Walter Lippmann wrote about these dangers in his 1920 book Liberty and the News. Lippmann worried then that when journalists “arrogate to themselves the right to determine by their own consciences what shall be reported and for what purpose, democracy is unworkable.”

More on trust tomorrow.