New hard-hitting series: ‘Pictures of Kittens in floral teapots’
Media statistic of the week
A new Reuters Institute factsheet on race and leadership in the news media in 2021 analyzes the percentage of non-white top editors in a strategic sample of 100 major online and offline news outlets in five different markets across four continents: Brazil, Germany, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Among the findings: Overall, only 15% of the 80 top editors across the 100 brands covered are non-white, despite the fact that, on average, 42% of the general population across all five countries are non-white.
Setting aside South Africa, 5% of the top editors across the other four countries are non-white, compared to, on average, 30% of the general population. In Brazil, Germany, and the UK, none of the outlets in the sample have a non-white top editor. The study shows there has been no significant overall increase in the number of non-white top editors over the last year across the markets covered.
This past week in the media industry
The first journalistic article-as-NFT
Non-fungible tokens are all the rage now, and as Samanth Subramanian says, “Let it never be said @qz is behind the curve: @YAN0 and I have just created the first journalistic article-as-NFT. It’s on auction at OpenSea. We wrote about how we did it -- and, to make things more meta, turned _that_ article into the NFT.”
That’s right, as Subramanian and David Yanofsky write at Quartz, This article is on sale as an NFT. Literally. Even better, it will support a good cause. As Heather Landy shares, “The winner of our ?@opensea? auction will be part of journalism history—and supporting the Lauren Brown Fellowship for women journalists of underrepresented backgrounds.”
“The future of journalism is selling articles as NFTs,” tweets Kerry Flynn. “But actually this is really creative from Quartz, and I love that the money is going to an important cause.” Katherine Bell adds, “If you’re not sure what an NFT even is, their step-by-step account of how they did it is one of the clearest explanations I’ve seen.”
So very many questions
Newsletters are also all the rage right now, and as we covered last week, controversy has been bubbling up over Substack recently. At Recode, Peter Kafka wrote about why Substack writers are mad at Substack. The problem is money and who’s making it.
Jude Ellison Sady Doyle notices, “I’m quoted here, on leaving Substack. My name is also in the URL, which, after 12 years of this, I know enough to recognize as Not Great, Bob.”
Kafka also spoke (via Slack) with his former Vox co-worker Matt Yglesias about his Substack deal, which seems to be a pretty darn good one. In fact, Adam Weinstein shares, “Gonna restart my old Substack and every entry is gonna be ‘Matt Yglesias pay off my student loans.’”
Overall, though, Meredith Haggerty says, “This absolutely makes me feel like I know a little more about Substack’s money situation; also because of Substack I still have so very many questions.”
“Even if you buy the argument that offering $250k advances to writers isn’t an editorial choice—which, for the record, is horeshit—I don’t see how you can argue that letting writers make $ publishing hate speech on your platform isn’t a *business* choice,” tweets Maddie Stone. “One day Silicon Valley will realize that building a ‘neutral platform’ is not only impossible long term, the phrase itself is an oxymoron,” Fred Vogelstein points out.
A threat to journalism?
During a subcommittee hearing on misinformation, disinformation and extremism in journalism, Columbia University professor Emily Bell, founding director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism, advocated for the regulation of news media to create “a more vibrant, truthful news environment.”
Caitlin Bassett has those details at Mind Matters News, and there’s a Substack connection. Bassett highlights a recent Twitter thread from UCLA professor Sarah T. Roberts denouncing Substack. Roberts wrote, “Substack is a dangerous threat to traditional news media. But more importantly? It is a threat to journalism.” As Bassett notes, Roberts contends that people who have not been trained in journalism lack the qualifications and the editorial oversight required for true journalism.
Facebook’s copycat version
Sources have told Sara Fischer of Axios that Facebook is exploring paid deals for its new publishing platform that will allow writers to publish their own websites and newsletters. Should you take that deal, though?
Christina Warren offers this advice: “I said this last time when this was a rumor and I’ll say it again: any journalist/creator dumb enough to take money from Facebook for this is digging their own grave. They will literally stop paying in a year.”
Plus, “Wow. Facebook, have you read the comments on... (checks notes)... basically anything a journalist posts on your platform? Also, how much are you paying to subject us to that abuse, exactly?” John Patrick Pullen wonders.
But wait. It gets worse. Gregg Carlstrom’s prediction: “Fast forward a year and everyone’s crazy middle-aged relatives will have a new side hustle writing a subscription newsletter about chemtrails and election fraud.”
The opposite of good journalism
Well, here’s another potential outlet for those topics. The Guardian’s Archie Bland reports that the Daily Telegraph plans to link journalists’ pay with article popularity. Bland saw emails of the plan that’s said to have “alarmed and dismayed” staff who fear it will “seriously warp our editorial priorities.”
“Oh lordy. Please no,” tweets Brekke Fletcher. Other reactions range from “truly bad idea” to “truly atrocious idea.”
Samuel Scott points out, “This will only increase clickbait, which is the opposite of good journalism. It is the awful short-termism trend in marketing spreading to journalism.” And as Chris Schilling says, it gives you “Even more reason not to RT/QT columnists who are actively seeking hate-clicks.”
Meanwhile, “*weather stories intensify*” tweets Matt Dennien. And Joe O’Shea urges, “Please do subscribe to my new hard-hitting series: ‘Pictures of Kittens in floral teapots.’”
The urge for clicks
Speaking of irresistible clicks, John Timmer of Wired reports on a new study that shows Negligence, Not Politics, Drives Most Misinformation Sharing. Researchers found that social media users are generally adept at identifying fake news. But that doesn’t always affect their decision to repost it.
Crispin Burke summarizes, “Study: Most people can spot misinformation and we know it’s wrong to share it. But the urge for clicks, likes, and retweets is so compelling, we do it anyway.”
And now, scientists are warning that fake news on social media about climate change and biodiversity loss is having a worrying impact in the battle to halt the growing environmental threats to the planet, a group of scientists and analysts have warned.
Robin McKie of the Guardian has details on a new report published by the Royal Swedish Academy of Science that shows measures needed to create a healthier, more resilient planet will be hard to enforce if they continue to suffer targeted attacks in social media.
Cashing in on the games market
To be sure, it’s not just kittens and fake news that attract reader attention. As the news cycle starts to slow down, Bloomberg’s Gerry Smith reports that The New York Times is investing more in puzzles and games to keep growing its subscriber base. He talked to the former Zynga exec running the business as well as a few people who became addicted to Spelling Bee during the pandemic.
“The most searched-for terms on the New York Times website last year weren’t ‘Trump’ or ‘Biden’ or even ‘coronavirus,’” he writes. “They were ‘crosswords’ and ‘Spelling Bee,’ the name of the Times’s online word game — part of the newspaper’s attempt to grab a bigger piece of the $100 billion market for mobile games.”
“The Biden administration is so boring (in fairness, on purpose) that the NYT has to invent new games to maintain subscriber growth,” tweets Nick Turner.
A bold & ambitious project
Ben Smith of The New York Times spoke with Ibram Kendi and Bina Venkataraman about their new venture with The Boston Globe, The Emancipator, an online publication focused on racism, inspired by 19th-century abolitionist newspapers. Check out that piece, He Redefined ‘Racist.’ Now He’s Trying to Build a Newsroom.
Wesley Lowery highlights from the piece, “When you stop debating whether climate change or systemic racism is real and whether it’s a problem, you can then debate the more salient question what to do about it,” [Venkataraman] said. “To me that is reality-based journalism, not advocacy journalism.”
Kirk LaPointe says it’s “The most important news about media, and the most interesting insights about how to conduct media, I’ve read lately.” Adds Carole Cadwalladr, “Kudos to Ibrahim Kendi & the brilliant @binajv on a bold & ambitious project.”
Nix ‘Jumping Jehoshaphat’
We’ll close out this week’s round-up with an interesting and also entertaining look at how (and when) the New York Times tests multiple headlines for a single article. It’s Part 1 of Tom Cleveland’s series on The New York Times for his TJCX newsletter.
“A fun analysis of A/B headline testing at the New York Times. Some interesting examples of headlines that won out with readers,” tweets Craig Silverman, who adds, “Also, lol at this total strike out.” As Mark Jacob says, “The New York Times’ A/B testing on headlines demonstrates that ‘Jumping Jehoshaphat’ doesn't work in headlines. Who knew?”
A few more
- In her piece for Inter Press Service on How Technology Reproduces & Amplifies Harassment & Abuse of Women Journalists, Alison Kentish recaps a UNESCO-led virtual event last week tackling online harassment and abuse against women journalists.
- Sara Guaglione of Digiday writes about how Vox Media is testing spinning off podcast episodes into standalone, evergreen shows. On March 10, it launched a weekly science podcast called “Unexplainable,” an expansion of its “explainer” franchise. “Love this,” says Jason Kint. “So much can be done with a brand when you have earned trust.”
- From ubiquitous sea shanties to the resurgent popularity of a 44-year-old Fleetwood Mac album, Katherine Rodgers explains at TechRadar how TikTok is changing the rules of the music industry.
- Quartz has hired Bob Maund as VP of Partnerships and Daniel Alvarez as chief product officer. Maund most recently led the Bloomberg Media Finance Vertical Sales team, while Alvarez was NBC Universal’s VP of product and design for local NBC and Telemundo TV stations.
- Ben Strauss of The Washington Post has your FAQ on what the NFL’s new TV deal means for the league, fans and networks
From the Muck Rack Team
We’ll be hosting our 6th Muck Rack Live on Wednesday, March 24th. The topic will be “Virtual Events: What's Changed for Journalists?” Leigh Nordstrom, Eye Editor at Women's Wear Daily, Michael Cuby, Editor-at-Large at them and Entertainment Writer at NYLON will join Greg to discuss how journalists have adapted to the way major events like SXSW and CES (as well as awards season as a whole) are covered, the challenges journalists have been faced with and what they think this means for event coverage in the future. Tune in live on Muck Rack’s Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and YouTube pages.