Semafor Joins A Very Broken US Media Industry Claiming To Have Found The Cure For Eroded Trust In News. But Have They Really?
from the reinventing-the-wheel dept
Former New York Times reporter Ben Smith and friends have launched a new media company named Semafor on the back of $25 million in donations. You might recall that one of the organization’s launch events didn’t go particularly well: a “trust in news” event that somehow didn’t see the problem with platforming and amplifying millionaire propagandist Tucker Carlson as a respectable voice in media.
From the start, Semafor has tried to portray itself as a truly unique take on news, and their introductory post by Smith once again takes this tack. Smith goes through what he believes are the major pitfalls in modern news (too many reporters with opinions! too many outlets telling people what they want to hear! too much focus on the U.S.! not enough outward bound linking to other reporters’ work!).
Many of these problems are true. And both Semafor and Smith claim to have a new formula that will fix all of them in one fell swoop. But when you read the paragraph about what Semafor is specifically doing differently to restore trust in news, it’s filled with fairly routine observations and ideas — presented as if nobody on Earth had ever had them before:
Our approach is more literal, and it’s built from the core principles of journalism. We take people seriously when they say they know that reporters are human beings — and experts in their beats — who have views of their own. But they’d also like us to separate the facts from our views. They’d like us to be humble about the possibility of disagreement. And they’d like us to distill differing views, and gather global perspective.
That’s all fine and good, but again, nothing here is particularly unique. A focus on more international stories is particularly welcome in an understandably U.S.-obsessed press (especially tech), but again, outlets like RestofWorld have already made this observation and are doing a good job serving that underserved market (and in a not particularly dissimilar font).
Fairly routine concepts are portrayed as foundationally revolutionary:
Some of them think we can pull this off. Others think we’re a little nuts. Our approach “flies completely in the face of what most people are currently doing,” Morgan said.
Granted the work will speak for itself, and many of the reporters they’ve collected (including Smith himself) are incredible scoop machines. But the specific claim you’re going to single-handedly restore trust in news — without actually presenting any original thoughts on that front — is bizarre hubris.
The outlet claims one of the key ways they’ll differentiate themselves is by separating out a reporter’s view from the established facts using what they claim is a revolutionary new design for articles that breaks out journalist opinion and analysis into its own section:
But when you actually read some of the pieces in question, the changes in question aren’t particularly revolutionary, and many of the reporters (so far) aren’t being given a long enough leash to truly explore this supposedly newfound freedom:
As Techdirt has pointed out on constant occasions, one of the biggest problems with U.S. news is the “he said, she said,” “view from nowhere” style of reporting that’s prevalent at outlets like Politico, Reuters, Axios, and many others. Reporting that takes a pseudo-objective approach to news, framing everything with a bizarre false-symmetry that buries factual reality in a pile of perfectly balanced quotes.
This kind of reporting spent decades burying the truth on subjects like racism, climate change, and corruption. It’s also been just mercilessly exploited by fascist propagandists and white supremacists the world over who are eager to “flood the zone with shit,” degrade trust in established institutions and the press, and befuddle the public before introducing their easy solution (hate anyone who isn’t like them).
Calling a spade a spade (in this case a massive, effective right wing conspiracy and propaganda apparatus built over 45 years across old and new media) will cost you readership, so it’s arguable that Semafor literally can’t fix (much less honestly identify) a major source of the trust in news erosion they claim to have a solution for. David Roberts offered up this thread that gets at a lot of what’s frustrating me:
The real money is in sacrificing truth to placate everybody — most especially the U.S. right wing — lest you lose Conservative viewers. You can see outlets like CNN and CBS embracing this pivot. It results in a sort of mushy Axios/Politico “both sides” journalism that again normalizes fascism because it’s financially disadvantageous to honestly and candidly call out conspiratorial authoritarianism as what it is.
You’re simply going to make more money placating authoritarians and hoovering up the ad-engagement bucks created by the controversial, divisive bile they’re pumping into the discourse.
It’s all underpinned by a myopic institutionalism that thinks reporters should be fired for expressing human opinions on Twitter (or for having done some activism in college), but is happy to pander to Amazon during Prime Day, or remain blithely obtuse to how the inherent bias of white, affluent, male, editorial leadership helped normalize everything from climate disaster to creeping U.S. authoritarianism.
Again, there’s very little indication from Smith’s post that Semafor and its editorial leadership understand any of this. And again, the outlet’s very first event, specifically focused on “restoring trust in news,” platformed a key far right propagandist as a legitimate journalist without, at any time, calling a duck a duck or holding his feet to the fire for a decade of dangerous and ignorant propaganda.
That doesn’t portend great things editorially, and while hopefully the outlet’s quality reporting truly does restore some faith in the press at a very dangerous time in U.S. politics, there’s also a very real possibility this is just Axios in a new font, run by trust fund DC access brunchlords with an overpowering allergy to upsetting powerful advertisers, event sponsors, and sources when it truly matters.
Filed Under: ben smith, corruption, editorial, fascism, he said she said, journalism, media, media criticism, reporting, semafor, trust in news, tucker carlson
Companies: semafor
Comments on “Semafor Joins A Very Broken US Media Industry Claiming To Have Found The Cure For Eroded Trust In News. But Have They Really?”
Fractured and less than coherent
The few articles I read were divided into four different pieces, and each one was a short blurb on a particular issue. Instead of one informative and substantive piece, each article is a fractured mess that allows me to pick the nice thing I want to believe. They are more concerned with providing their readers with things that make them feel good rather than challenging assumptions and presenting uncomfortable truths. They may go further than I originally thought.
Re:
If that’s the case, then the American media landscape is beyond salvation, and even if one wants to rehabilitate it, one has to remove the cancer first.
This means we start with the forcible dismantling of News Corp and increased scrutiny, if not the outright banning of money in politics. Unfortunately, none of that is gonna happen short of violent regime change.
The loss in MEDIA as opposed to news
Is it aint news anymore, its one part packaged propaganda and one part marketing, not news, it’s inherently biased and online media is polluted by paywalls and click bait. The media has become a joke, that is it’s not trusted. It’s a fucking narrative, not information.
How did rubs between his eyes they not see giving Tucker airtime that didn’t end with him finding out he was siting in a dunk tank wasn’t a good look?
Nothing can be done to restore faith in the media, its dead.
Its broken and getting worse with every single “fix” applied to it.
Seriously at this point it wouldn’t shock me to see even serious media trying to run a piece to give us both sides of the Holocaust.
Media helped create larger & larger rifts in society.
Then when they decided maybe they should call a lie a lie and not a misstatement they had already primed the faithful to turn on the media for daring to tell the truth.
Alternative Facts… and they gave her more airtime.
I don’t care who the fsck she was in the white house, when that phrase was used they should have pulled the plug.
An entire nation now running on alternative facts, because while not all conservatives are Q idiots not all lefties are playing with a full deck either.
Basic factual information no longer wins the day, and the fault lies with the media… this tiny little bandaid isn’t going to do shit to stem the bleeding from the wounds inflicted by media refusing to defend truth & reality.
Re:
Not all conservatives are QAnon fuckwits, but they threw their lot in with a President who is exactly the kind of idiot their voterbase is.
After all, 73 million people chose to want a certain white supremacist asshole in chief to continue his shit reign…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Lol
Reading articles like this shows abject hostility and bias towards one side. An example is using terms like “fascism” and “racist” which are pretty debated topics at this point in time. Screaming “my side is right” at the top of your lungs and claiming objectivity does not make you correct.
Fox news is not exactly a bastion of truth, but I’m surprised you seem to think CNN or MSNBC are much better (they aren’t).
There is no objective media in the United States, that does not make it impossible, nor is it a bad objective to reach. The author of this article is a toxic partisan. Maybe his opponents are also. But that is no excuse in my mind for this vitriol and illogical article.
Re:
GEE, I FUCKING WONDER WHO FUCKING POPULARIZED THE FUCKING THING IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE?
OH WAIT, IT’S RUPERT MURDOCH AND HIS “CONSERVATIVE” PALS, THE KOCHS.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
It seems they want to restore credibility for a biased lefty media, but don’t want to acknowledge that their biased activism is what caused the credibility collapse in the first place. Giving new outlets a chance to gain market share isn’t useful to leftists unless the outlet slanders their political opponents.
Re: Re:
If reporting facts and offering proper context for them is “lefty media”, that says more about “righty media”.
Besides, neither CNN nor MSNBC are leftist. They’re centrist at best, and given how they’ve been booking more and more conservatives as talking heads, they’re leaning more to the right than they ever have to the left. That they still know better than to become full-on GOP propaganda machines is not being “leftist”—it’s being ethical.
Re:
The only “debate” on those topics is about who has a vested interest in making them seem like “debated topics”. (Hint: It’s fascists and racists.)
They’re not full-on right-wing propaganda machines (yet). As a result, they maintain more credibility than Fox News and its further-to-the-right brethren (e.g., OANN).
You can’t separate bias from journalism. Someone must decide what to distill out of the mass of available data, what facts to check, how much context to include (and explain), and how much needs to be left out for time and space. If you want to read a few paragraphs that sum up a 65-page legal ruling, someone must choose what to include, what to leave out, and how much context those paragraphs need.
Bad journalism pretends both sides are equally valid. Good journalism reports the facts, even if those facts say one side is irredeemably awful or full of shit. False neutrality is propaganda; objective journalism can never exist.
Re:
Oh shut the fuck up. We criticize Democrats on Techdirt all the time. We also criticize CNN and MSNBC and other mainstream media outlets.
But the simple fact is that the right has lost its fucking mind entirely and ARE pushing fascism and racism as policy. That doesn’t mean that the Democrats aren’t wrong about a ton of stuff and idiotic, because they are. But they’re at least within the bounds of normal political wrongness, and aren’t looking to burn down institutions out of spite.
Only one side is doing that, and it’s worth calling that out.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Criticizing democrats doesn’t mean that you’re unbiased. It just means things are REALLY looking bad for democrats, and you still have a significant left wing slant to your coverage. Until you drop the “everyone I disagree with is a racist” attitude, you leftists are going to suffer from that credibility problem.
Re: Re: Re:
Aww, what’s wrong—is Mike not catering to your conservative values? Is he not printing enough conservative views for you? Of course, that raises an interesting question:
Which conservative views do you wanna see more of?
Re: Re: Re:
Everyone is biased. We’re biased towards our opinions, based on facts. We’ve never been pro any particular party. We’re not even remotely partisan here. We criticize dumb politicians doing dumbshit stuff.
But you have to be totally fucking clueless — something you’ve demonstrated you are — to think that the dumbshit being done by Democrats and Republicans these days is of the same variety in different directions.
Bullshit. I don’t give a shit “how things look” for either party. I’m not concerned about parties. I’m concerned about who is basing policies on actual issues, and who is basing policies on spite.
And how the fuck do you think our coverage is “left wing”? Because we criticize Trumpist morons and their nonsense culture wars? That’s not being “left wing.” We’ve never been left or right wing. To me, the whole breakdown of “left” and “right” is nonsense.
Which we have never, ever done. We call out raicsts for being racists. I don’t think everyone who disagrees with me is racist, and the fact that YOU immediately resort to such nonsense shows you have nothing, you know nothing, and the only thing you can do is whine and play victim.
Again, I’m not a leftist, and it’s hilarious that you keep calling me a “leftist.” My views do not match up in any way with “leftist” politics. That you think anyone basing their writings on actual truth must be leftist says a shit ton about you, and your inability to understand anything.
And I have no “credibility” problem.
I really have gotten sick of people insisting that because we actually criticize the nonsense you support we must be part of “the other team.” We don’t believe in teams here. We call things as they are. I’m sorry that your feeble mind can’t take that.
Re: Re: Re:
Mike’s been spouting Marx? Post your fucking evidence.
You’re the one who keeps reciting NeoNazi talking points, and you practically admit to being one.
It speaks volumes that all of these attempts at revolutionizing news and news consumption center on how the news is formatted, not how it’s gathered.
No amount of simplification or fancy article structure or bullet point-ification can elevate a poorly reported story. The news industry is bleeding money and cutting investigative journalism departments left and right while partisan investors are buying up local outlets and bad faith actors are spreading disinformation. Arbitrarily segregating news from any semblance of opinion will not address those problems. Nor will it address the wider public’s growing distrust of news and deepening ignorance of how journalists actually do their work.
Worse, it plays right into that ignorance by buying into the false idea that the news can exist without occasionally favoring certain views. Sometimes, one view is right and the other is wrong. You cannot accurately report on the color of the sky without offending the Sky Is Red party. Balance for the sake of balance does not bring us closer to the truth.
Unfortunately news will always have bias in it. Even when sticking to the facts. Someone chooses which stories to write. Someone chooses which stories to run. I find AP news to be a better source than Fox, CNN, and the others. Fox has become tabloid news. People listen to Hannity and Carlson in their echo chambers peddling outrage, and believe what they’re hearing. They don’t realize that guys like that are getting rich leading people around by the nose.
Re:
And funding things like Christian Dominionism, COVID Disinformation, and the like.
Oh, and destroying rule of law in OTHER countries. By leggit buying legislation.
Re: AP is Susceptible Too
And then they go and run bizarre stuff like this:
https://www.readtpa.com/p/taking-a-look-at-the-associated-press
Re: Re:
I followed your link and read this…”As it turned out, Armstrong was an employee of Oz’s campaign, something that was not disclosed in the story.”
And then I looked up the AP story which had this…”Later, he gave a hug to Armstrong, who has been an employee of Oz’s campaign for Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate seat, and said, “How do you cope?””
Looks like that isn’t the evidence of AP bias that you were led to believe.
Re: Re: Re:
Except it kind of is, because the AP story didn’t originally include part of the line you quoted—specifically, the part that mentions Armstrong being a campaign employee for Oz.
Re: Re: Re:2
The fact that AP did later include the line after the complaint does imply that AP is less biased than, let’s say, some of News Corp’s “news”.
Cure? They could stop lying. At least, one wishes they could; but they just can’t seem to help themselves.
Where’s the news?
Seeing that I can find only one, single, source that does this (CSPAN), here’s hoping that they succeed in doing what they intend.