The 4th Estate Thread Has Surrendered

[Unagi]

OMG that is the most fucking asinine thing I've heard.... today.

The day is young . . . Don’t give up!

Yeah, I'm sure it won't last long.

[Unagi]

I wish the clip went longer so we can watch Tapper (probably) not challenge her on the absolute horror of that statement.

I've always thought Tapper was a pretty good reporter... You are probably right though, and that sucks.

[malchior]

I wish the clip went longer so we can watch Tapper (probably) not challenge her on the absolute horror of that statement.

I've always thought Tapper was a pretty good reporter... You are probably right though, and that sucks.

He is generally and in fairness the format is 95% of the problem. These audiences are put there to lob in softballs. And the majority are running as more serious, less tainted Trumps.

[pr0ner]

Licht OUT at CNN.

[Exodor]

Licht OUT at CNN.

A good first step but the Atlantic article made it clear he was just the instrument to implement Zaslav's desire to move CNN to the right.

I won't be back until they stop their embrace of Trump.

[malchior]

The Atlantic piece made it clear that Licht was far, far, far over his head. I also tend to agree that Zaslav will ikely install a competent manager to push this right-wing agenda but let's see how this shakes out.

[El Guapo]

The Atlantic piece made it clear that Licht was far, far, far over his head. I also tend to agree that Zaslav will ikely install a competent manager to push this right-wing agenda but let's see how this shakes out.

I'll take whatever measure of accountability I can get these days. Licht fucked up, and now he's out, which is good. To the extent that Zaslav is motivated by profit seeking, maybe this misadventure causes him to recalibrate. I dare not hope, but who knows.

[Kraken]

The Atlantic piece made it clear that Licht was far, far, far over his head. I also tend to agree that Zaslav will ikely install a competent manager to push this right-wing agenda but let's see how this shakes out.

I'll take whatever measure of accountability I can get these days. Licht fucked up, and now he's out, which is good. To the extent that Zaslav is motivated by profit seeking, maybe this misadventure causes him to recalibrate. I dare not hope, but who knows.

I am suspending my boycott of CNN, which began after their trump rally, for the time being. You're on probation, CNN.

[malchior]

Worth a listen. He is holding back bit but he is correct. We are suffering through an all-out (mis)information war being promulgated by the wealthy against the citizens of the world.

[malchior]

What happens when you let social media editors write headlines for clicks.

Time Headline: How Ukraine's dam collapse could become the country's 'Chernobyl'

[El Guapo]

Do they really not run headlines by the article writers?

[Zaxxon]

Do they really not run headlines by the article writers?

Not many outlets do.

[stessier]

Do they really not run headlines by the article writers?

I think it is extremely rare for any place to use a headline from the article writer. At least that is what my listening of the Press Box podcast would suggest. Headlines are an artform in and of themselves.

[El Guapo]

Do they really not run headlines by the article writers?

I think it is extremely rare for any place to use a headline from the article writer. At least that is what my listening of the Press Box podcast would suggest. Headlines are an artform in and of themselves.

I know that, but it seems foolish to not give the writer input into the headline, given that they're the experts on what the article says.

[Jaymann]

This Plane Crash Could Become New York's 9/11

[Blackhawk]

Do they really not run headlines by the article writers?

I think it is extremely rare for any place to use a headline from the article writer. At least that is what my listening of the Press Box podcast would suggest. Headlines are an artform in and of themselves.

In other words, it's an advertising blurb.

[Isgrimnur]

Social Media Influencers

[malchior]

The 4th estate has become hyper competitive in a saturated misinformation-rich space. The sober have to compete with the sensational and the sober are/were losing. They have over time become less sober headline wise at the minimum.

[Isgrimnur]

What malchior will post next will SHOCK you!

[malchior]

What malchior will post next will SHOCK you!

Editors hate this ONE WEIRD TRICK...

[Freyland]

The Top 37 Federal Indictments (Number 4 will surprise you!)

[Octavious]

The Top 37 Federal Indictments (Number 4 will surprise you!)

[Carpet_pissr]

“95% of OO’ers do THIS every night before going to bed (and it’s NOT ‘floss’!)”

[Kraken]

Do they really not run headlines by the article writers?

I think it is extremely rare for any place to use a headline from the article writer. At least that is what my listening of the Press Box podcast would suggest. Headlines are an artform in and of themselves.

In other words, it's an advertising blurb.

Depends on the publication. Writers submit a headline with their story. 75% of the time, I let it stand, or change just a word or two. When I do rewrite them, it's to make them shorter and clearer. But I work for a nonprofit academic press. We like using keywords, but not clickbait, and accuracy is priority numero uno.

Back in the day, when I was learning the craft and all publishing was print, headlines were indeed an art. You knew how many columns you had and what size font you were using; those two numbers gave you a "count." Most letters and the space between words counted as one. Some letters like capital M and W counted as two; lowercase m and w counted 1.5 (as did most capitals), and lowercase i and l counted 0.5. The challenge was to write an accurate and enticing headline that used your whole count and followed certain grammar rules. I was considered good because I could often work in a pun or make it otherwise interesting.

Talk about lost arts....

[Isgrimnur]

Grand jury indicts Daniel Penny in chokehold death of NYC subway rider Jordan Neely

[Isgrimnur]

Tucker Carlson: Fox News names Jesse Watters to replace star anchor

Watters, 44, joined the network as a production assistant in 2002 and has anchored the 19:00 EDT (23:00 GMT) timeslot since the start of this year.
...
Watters, best known for his man-on-the-street interviews in New York City, is co-host of the popular roundtable show The Five.

His instalment in Carlson's old timeslot comes amid a broader shake-up in the channel's nightly line-up.

Laura Ingraham, who hosts The Ingraham Angle, is moving to the 19:00 hour, while popular late-night host Greg Gutfeld will take over at 22:00, the network announced on Monday.

Sean Hannity, a primetime Fox anchor for more than two decades, will see his show remain in the 21:00 slot, the network said.

[Pyperkub]

Fox admits to lying and dominion settles for 787.5 million live conference going on. Dominion going on to"next case" Yay? What will that do to Fox though?

Smartmatic lawsuit v Newsmax proceeding...

Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit against Fox News laid bare how the network communicated behind the scenes about broadcasting 2020 election misinformation, ultimately leading the network to fork over a massive settlement. Newsmax could be next, as voting-technology company Smartmatic has subpoenaed several of the right-wing cable network’s current and former employees for work and personal correspondence.

Several Newsmax insiders, who spoke with Rolling Stone under a condition of anonymity due to a fear of reprisal, said that roughly three weeks ago they were told to hand over “mirror images of their personal cellphone, personal email, and iCloud,” as Smartmatic’s lawsuit against the network moves forward.

Edit - Smartmatic v Fox also still moving forward (bigger demand than Dominion, FWIW):

In the wake of its historic $787 million settlement with Dominion, Fox News will now turn over additional evidence as part of the ongoing $2.7 billion defamation case it is facing from Smartmatic, lawyers for both sides said in court on Wednesday.

Fox has agreed to turn over depositions, exhibits, and "all of the responding documents" related to a number of individuals at the company-- including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, an attorney for Smartmatic, Edward Wipper, said in court.

Article re smartmatic/fox from April...

[Grifman]

FOX just keeps winning:

[malchior]

Zaslav managed to turn a catty blog post into a national story via the Streisand effect because he is like many of his peers is a fragile thin-skinned "master of the universe." Worse GQ softened the piece significantly leading the author to pull their byline. The editor involved is working on a movie at WB. Icky stuff.

WaPo

In an unusual step, GQ magazine removed an article critical of powerful media executive David Zaslav from its website just hours after it was published Monday, following a complaint from Zaslav’s camp.

The story, by freelance film critic Jason Bailey, excoriated the CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery for his handling of the company’s entertainment properties — specifically perceived crimes against film, such as the layoffs at the Turner Classic Movies channel that outraged prominent directors and other superfans and his decision to not release finished movies such as “Batgirl” for tax purposes. At one point, Bailey compared Zaslav to tyrannical “Succession” patriarch Logan Roy.

“In a relatively short period of time, David Zaslav has become perhaps the most hated man in Hollywood,” Bailey wrote.

A Zaslav spokesman complained to GQ about the story soon after it was published, according to people close to the process who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve confidences. By early afternoon on Monday, the magazine had made extensive edits to the story.

...

The edits and eventual deletion of the story angered top film critics. On Twitter, writer Scott Tobias said the edited version of the story was “completely unacceptable,” while critic Matt Zoller Seitz shared the archived version of Bailey’s article. Critic Hunter Harris illustrated the controversy on Twitter with a screenshot from HBO’s “The Wire” — another Warner Bros. Discovery property — in which fan-favorite stickup artist Omar Little describes a rival operation as “very sloppy.”

The flap over the GQ article is just the latest controversy for Zaslav, who has presided over cuts at Warner Bros. Discovery as it works to pay off nearly $50 billion in debt. The company’s stock price has fallen by about half since April 2022, when Discovery and WarnerMedia merged in a $43 billion deal.

Zaslav has also faced challenges managing Warner Bros. Discovery’s most prominent cable property, CNN. Zaslav fired his handpicked CEO, Chris Licht, in June after months of management turmoil at the news giant, culminating in Licht’s ill-advised participation in a profile in the Atlantic that suggested that Licht was out of his depth.

[hepcat]

While I agree that Warner Bros is being run by morons these days, I do have to point out that the article on the removal does say that the writer never once tried to reach out to Zaslav or WB for any kind of rebuttal or input. That's rather strange and gives me the feeling it was meant as a hatchet piece first and foremost. A well deserved one, but in terms of journalism, a misstep.

[malchior]

Not really a misstep IMO. That is WB spin. It was an opinion post for their blog site. Sort of like the op ed section of a newspaper. The standard practice is to not solicit comments in most publications.

The main goal is to have an opinion and make sure there aren't any material errors undermining the opinion. So they could have asked them for a response but that is not the normal process. Instead the editorial process is supposed to reduce the error rate; and no one can point out any errors anyway. The re-write simply deleted references and a reaction to facts.

[hepcat]

It is, or at least used to be, considered good practice in journalism to ask for comment when the content of the article is defamatory.

Again, not defending the sentiment as I totally agree that WB has screwed up a lot in the recent past. But I also find pieces that don't even try to get another side of the story to be less impactful.

[malchior]

It is, or at least used to be, considered good practice in journalism to ask for comment when the content of the article is defamatory.

True if this was journalism. It is opinion. It's totally different. It's also wrong to call it defamatory. It's certainly negative but media critics don't call the director when they write a bad review. That is akin to what it was. A bad review of Zaslav's performance as a media chief.

Again, not defending the sentiment as I totally agree that WB has screwed up a lot in the recent past. But I also find pieces that don't even try to get another side of the story to be less impactful.

It was a list of events and his opinion about them. The only side of the story was his expert opinion as a media critic.

[hepcat]

I guess we'll agree to disagree then. I mean, it's a high end tabloid" so take that as you will, but even Daily Beast says it's not the norm.

WBD’s main point of contention was that it had never been contacted by Bailey at any stage of the writing process, which is not the norm for corporate coverage in general.

There is such a thing as "Opinion Journalism", by the way. It's considered one of the main forms of journalism, as a matter of fact. This would, I believe, apply here. So I also disagree good journalism practice should be ignored in these cases.

media critics don't call the director when they write a bad review.

They normally don't review the director himself though.

[malchior]

I guess we'll agree to disagree then. I mean, it's a high end tabloid" so take that as you will, but even Daily Beast says it's not the norm.

Probably will to agree to disagree because we're worlds apart on this. FWIW I don't care really care what the Daily Beast says. It's a rag. I'd agree that some opinions may vary here but it's a stretch to call it the norm. As to varying opinions, here is one saying not neccessary. A second saying he should have but also essentially says it's an ass covering move. We're not talking about some hard rule here at all. And even so the second goes on to say that GQ acted like wimps. Their editorial staff printed it and then shrank when someone powerful came knocking. They look pretty weak.

There is such a thing as "Opinion Journalism", by the way. It's considered one of the main forms of journalism, as a matter of fact. This would, I believe, apply here. So I also disagree good journalism practice should be ignored in these cases.

I'm still trying to understand why you think this is a rule and why it matters *in this case*. Just take a step back. He listed true events and gave his opinion. What's the point of getting a comment there? The general reason to get an opinion would where there are facts or opinions are in dispute. The facts aren't in dispute and it is the author's own opinion. What's the dispute? Why would getting a comment clarify anything. Opinion pieces have no duty to be fair. They just need to be true. There was nothing untrue involved as far as I've seen.

In any case, even if they should have at least tried to give them the chance to comment even if just a courtesy heads up, everything GQ and Discovery did afterwards was much worse from the perspective of journalistic and business ethics.

They normally don't review the director himself though.

I don't understand this comment because this happens all the time. Opinion writers often dig into the director's motivations, abilities, and such when reviewing movies or contextualizing a movie placed in context of a career. That's entirely normal.

[malchior]

As an aside, then Discovery is spinning lies about what happened on top. That flies in the face of the reporting at Washington Post and SF Gate which said that GQ essentially pulled it because the author wanted his byline off it. It isn't hard to reckon that no one else likely wanted to put their name on a piece digging on someone as powerful as Zaslav after they saw this wreckage.

[malchior]

[Kurth]

More importantly, WTF is he doing wearing Skechers??? Come on, Joe . . . Not cool.

[Blackhawk]

On the one hand it gives a poor impression. But beyond that, who cares what shoes/socks he wears. We hired him to make decisions (which he's doing decently at) and to lead (which he's falling flat at.) We did not hire him to provide a fashion role model. If he were able to fix some of the problems we're facing, he could wear sequined Barbie sneakers with light-up soles for all I care.

[malchior]

Hold my tan suit!