semafor – Techdirt (original) (raw)

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:

After reading a few @Semafor launch pieces, I kinda wish the "[Reporter]'s View" sections actually included…the reporter's view?

Instead it seems to be a section for some very standard-issue context/analysis, e.g.https://t.co/ETwkiYfdNO

— Joshua Benton (@jbenton) October 18, 2022

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:

… to wit: any journalistic outlet that hews to basic journalistic values (above all, accuracy) is going to be labeled left-wing by the current right.

You're either fair & accurate or you appeal to cons. This is not a circle that can be squared.

— David Roberts (@drvolts) October 19, 2022

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

Ben Smith’s New Media Venture Ably Demonstrates Why Platforming Authoritarian Propagandists Is A Lose-Lose Scenario

from the what-are-we-even-doing-here? dept

Fri, Jul 8th 2022 12:17pm - Karl Bode

Former Buzzfeed and New York Times reporter Ben Smith is poised to launch a new media company named Semafor on the back of $25 million in donations. To grab some attention for the venture’s looming launch, Semafor recently partnered with the Knight Foundation to launch the company’s first event: The Future of News: Trust and Polarization.

The event featured folks like former Wall Street Journal editor Gerald Seib, Al Jazeera host Femi Oke, Washington Post columnist Taylor Lorenz, and Politico’s John Harris. Absent from the event was any academic or outside expert actually versed in why trust in US news has deteriorated. In their place, Smith announced he’d be doing an exclusive interview with… Fox News’ Tucker Carlson.

The decision to platform a bigot and propagandist as part of an event on trust in news didn’t go over particularly well among people actually trying to, you know, restore trust in news. Such as media reform activist Nandini Jammi, who co-founded Sleeping Giants and Check My Ads (both campaigns to limit the power and wealth of COVID-denying, conspiracy-heavy, race-baiting Fox News):

Ben’s response was fairly typical: he had to interview Tucker Carlson because Tucker Carlson is a very important man who doesn’t provide many interviews. It would be journalistic malpractice, Smith implied, to do anything else:

Our plans are to ask hard questions of powerful people — I don't think there are a lot of journalists who would refuse to do that interview?

— Ben Smith (@semaforben) June 30, 2022

The idea that this was being done to generate controversy and attention for a media venture, itself an act likely to reduce trust in news (at a conference purportedly about trust in news), was just skipped over. Also not considered: that one might just not give Carlson an even bigger bullhorn, instead giving that mental real estate to any number of media reform activists or academics laboring in obscurity.

After weeks of criticism and promises that Smith would hold Carlson’s feet to the fire, the interview arrived and Smith did… exactly none of that.

You can watch the interview itself here. Carlson, on webcam from his Manhattan or Hamptons closet (probably because his mansion kitchen wouldn’t project the desired man of the people persona) ran roughshod over Smith for a good half an hour, all to Carlson’s amusement.

At no point did Smith demonstrate real control over the interview, letting Carlson ramble on at length about how terrible middle-aged liberal women are, how he’s not actually a racist, how his critics in the press are the _actual propagandists_… without Smith seriously challenging the claims. Smith himself seems uncomfortable throughout, nervously fiddling with his notes in between lobbing softballs.

At one point, Smith repeats Carlson’s core claim that he’s “effectively just misunderstood.” At other points, attempted gotcha questions don’t land, such as asking if Carlson’s ever been discriminated against at work as a white Protestant. Almost every time Smith has an opportunity to press Carlson on outright lies, he either changes the subject or lets Carlson change the subject for him.

You then have to ask: what was the actual benefit in terms of the event’s premise? Ben’s promise, that he’d hold Carlson accountable with hard questions, never materialized. So the end result was little more than further amplification of Carlson’s falsehoods, the validation of Carlson’s role as a pseudo-journalist, and the perpetuation of the false idea that fascism is a valid platform that’s up for debate.

Before the event, Smith’s noble dedication to journalism was lauded by numerous folks in media, who agreed that you simply have to give a white supremacist authoritarian pretending to be a journalist an even bigger platform — at a trust in news conference. You just don’t have a choice!

Some folks in media suggested that turning down an interview with Carlson would be akin to turning down an interview with Hitler, and you just don’t do that. Others tried to make the point that because Carlson already has a massive nightly platform, there’s really no harm in elevating him further at an event specifically dedicated to solving sagging trust in U.S. journalism.

According to Smith and friends, platforming Carlson was the right call because it created the opportunity to challenge Carlson’s positions, be they agitating deep-rooted racial divisions for ratings, harming public health by amplifying COVID conspiracy theories and vaccine skepticism, or parroting the incoherent ramblings of the country’s surging, conspiratorial, and increasingly violent authoritarian right.

But at no point did an actual, competent challenge to Carlson’s falsehoods find its way to the stage.

Worse, that’s a half hour that could have been given any number of academics and experts with actual solutions to the problem. But actual media scholars well versed in why trust in US media is flailing weren’t just under-represented at the event, they were completely absent. It was a choice to embrace controversy over substance, ironically and inadvertently illustrating why trust in U.S. media is falling apart.

There are numerous reasons for eroded trust in US news. The death of quality local news opened the door wide to propagandists, foreign intelligence, and pink slime. Tone-deaf Luddite classism rules at major outlets like the New York Times. The shift toward an ad-based engagement model financially incentivized an entire industry to prioritize controversy and hysteria over boring substance and expertise.

Like so many others, Carlson has weaponized this dysfunction, feeding a steady diet of increasingly hysterical outrage drivel to partisans for clout. He’s perfected the act of media trolling at scale; making unhinged claims he knows will then be hate retweeted by outraged critics oblivious they’re being exploited as a human amplifier (a favorite pastime of Carlson predecessor Ann Coulter).

Platforming, debunking, or even debating fascist propagandists is a lose-lose scenario. You can’t defeat it with “gotcha” questions, because fascists have zero compulsion about lying, and no incentive to meet you in honest dialogue. Their goal is simple: to platform fascist ideology, to expose that ideology to as broad as audience as possible, and to frame fascism itself as a valid policy that’s up for debate.

The very second you’ve entered into this arrangement you’ve already lost.

Don’t try to debunk. Don’t try to debate. Don’t think you’re helping by dunking on Carlson with a hate retweet. Don’t get caught in a fight over whether an obvious fascist is a fascist. Instead find somebody under-represented who’s actually pushing real solutions and amplify them instead. Don’t feed the trolls.

That’s not to say fascists should be completely ignored and never challenged. But at some point, if democracy, trust in media, and foundational institutions are to be preserved, you have to enter into a savvy calculus about which signals are worth boosting, and which are harmful and exploitative. This was a trust in news event. Host actual experts with a good faith interest in solving the problem.

Somebody ignorant to modern discourse could easily walk away from the interview believing that Carlson, a millionaire frozen food empire heir turned opportunistic propagandist, is actually a brave, truth-telling journalist unfairly forced to hide in his closet by the powers that be. And that the real propagandists are anyone that would dare question Carlson’s noble intentions.

That we’re six-plus years into a massive surge in trumpist propaganda-soaked authoritarianism — and affluent, influential media leaders still don’t understand how any of this works — isn’t a great sign for what comes next. You win the game that fascists are trying to play by not playing it, giving the valuable mental real estate they hope to occupy to voices genuinely interested in real solutions and reform.

Filed Under: ben smith, fascism, lies, propaganda, trust, trust in news, truth, tucker carlson
Companies: semafor