Category: Journalism

Apple Buys Texture, the Digital Magazine Service ⇢

⌘ Permalink

Apple, in a rare acquisition announcement:

Texture brings over 200 of the world’s best magazines to life, providing an easy way for users to read high-quality stories and entire issues of their favorite titles. With Texture, users enjoy the magazines they know and love, while discovering new content that fits their passions and interests.

“We’re excited Texture will join Apple, along with an impressive catalog of magazines from many of the world’s leading publishers,” said Eddy Cue, Apple’s senior vice president of Internet Software and Services. “We are committed to quality journalism from trusted sources and allowing magazines to keep producing beautifully designed and engaging stories for users.”

I’m not a Texture subscriber, but I like the concept. A single $9.99/month subscription gives users access to their favorite publications. It’s like a mashup of Netflix and Apple’s now-defunct Newsstand.

Texture’s future is Apple News, it seems:

After the deal goes through, Apple will own all of Texture, which currently publishes not only an iOS app, but also Android, Amazon Kindle Fire and Windows. I assume at some point those apps may fade away as Apple News ingests the content currently offered by Texture.

This comes as tech companies are changing how they handle news sources. Facebook and Twitter are both continuing to make changes in the wake of the 2016 election, downplaying the role of news on their platforms. Apple is moving in the other direction, but Apple News (and now Texture) gives Apple the ability to publish news solely from trusted source, as Eddie Cue’s quote in the Apple PR article points out.

Whatever happens with Texture, it sure is an interesting acquisition. I look forward to seing what Apple does here.

Sinclair Broadcast Group ⇢

⌘ Permalink

John Oliver spent some time looking at Sinclair Broadcast Group, the company that is buying up a huge number of local TV news stations around the country. It is a fascinating — and scary — look behind the scenes of media. The views this company holds and and forces into the homes of their viewers are horrifying.

Fox’s Coverage of the Senate Health Care Bill ⇢

⌘ Permalink

This piece by Jeff Guo on how the new bill was covered on Fox shouldn’t surprise anyone:

Juan Williams, the token liberal, was the only person who brought up substantive details about the new Republican bill. “This is going to drive the premiums and costs for working people who come to the hospital,” he said. “What about the elderly, Jesse? The people we all have sympathy for?”

“They are all going to die, according to the liberals,” Gutfeld mocked.

“You forgot the children dying of cancer,” deadpanned Kimberly Guilfoyle, who was at one point rumored to be a possible replacement for Sean Spicer as the president’s press secretary.

Fuck you, Fox.

Lauren Kern Named First Editor-in-Chief of Apple News ⇢

⌘ Permalink

Politico:

And it’s a move that’s sure to raise eyebrows not just in Silicon Valley, but in Manhattan media circles as well. Morning Media has learned that Apple has given the job — a new position at the Cupertino-based company — to Lauren Kern, one of New York magazine’s most high-ranking editors and a former deputy editor at The New York Times Magazine.

It’s unclear at this point what this position will mean for Apple News, as the company and Kern declined to comment. I assume Apple is building more of editorial organization within Apple News, but how big it will be, and what it will do within the app is unknown, to me at least.

Two things do come to mind though.

First, Apple could be building a news team. I think this is pretty unlikely, but first-party reporting within Apple News could add value to the platform. This team could even generate video for Apple’s Always-Rumored-But-Never-Here TV offering. Getting into reporting can be expensive and risky. Moreover, it just doesn’t seem like a very Apple-like move to me.

What I think is more likely is the second option; this new team could be working to influence coverage seen in Apple News to a greater extent than what is happening now.

Facebook has been under pressure for influencing the top news trends seen by its users, as well as its shifting approach to fighting fake news. If Apple wades into these waters, it will have to deal with these issues at some point.

It’s very tricky business to exercise editorial control over news from outside sources. I’m very curious to see what — if anything — changes in Apple News in the future.

Mossberg Out ⇢

⌘ Permalink

Walt Mossberg, in his final weekly column:

We’ve all had a hell of a ride for last few decades, no matter when you got on the roller coaster. It’s been exciting, enriching, transformative. But it’s also been about objects and processes. Soon, after a brief slowdown, the roller coaster will be accelerating faster than ever, only this time it’ll be about actual experiences, with much less emphasis on the way those experiences get made.

This column is thought-provoking and more than a little bittersweet. Our industry is saying goodbye to an icon.

Tim Cook, on Fake News ⇢

⌘ Permalink

Allister Heath at The Telegraph:

The rise of fake news was being driven by unscrupulous firms determined to attract online readers at any cost, [Cook] said.

“We are going through this period of time right here where unfortunately some of the people that are winning are the people that spend their time trying to get the most clicks, not tell the most truth,” he said. “It’s killing people’s minds in a way.”

Products like Apple News can be used to combat this, but the biggest platform for this garbage is Facebook.

Facebook Launches Journalism Project ⇢

⌘ Permalink

Mike Isaac at The New York Times has details:

The effort calls for the company to forge deeper ties with publishers by collaborating on publishing tools and features before they are released. Facebook will also develop training programs and tools for journalists to teach them how to better search its site to report on news and events. And Facebook wants to help train members of the public to find news sources they trust, while fighting the spread of fake news across its site.

I’m not sure what to think of this. Facebook and media companies should have better publishing tools and ways to combat fake news, but in today’s world, people are going to believe what fits their worldview.

I’m usually not so pessimistic about journalism, but that’s just where I am right now.

Tribune Publishing announces … something ⇢

⌘ Permalink

The Tribune Publishing Company, owner of the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and more is rebranding:

Tribune Publishing Co. today announced that the Company will change its name to tronc, Inc., a content curation and monetization company focused on creating and distributing premium, verified content across all channels. tronc, or tribune online content, captures the essence of the Company’s mission. tronc pools the Company’s leading media brands and leverages innovative technology to deliver personalized and interactive experiences to its 60 million monthly users.

[…]

Chairman Michael Ferro said, “Our industry requires an innovative approach and a fundamentally different way of operating. Our transformation strategy – which has attracted over $114 million in growth capital – is focused on leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning to improve the user experience and better monetize our world-class content in order to deliver personalized content to our 60 million monthly users and drive value for all of our stakeholders. Our rebranding to tronc represents the manner in which we will pool our technology and content resources to execute on our strategy.”

I sorta passed out there in the middle of that blockquote, but I’m sure this will save newspapers.

Regarding Donald Trump’s comments on libel law ⇢

⌘ Permalink

Hadas Gold at Politico, quoting Donald Trump:

“One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading. I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”

While shield laws are designed to give reporters the right to refuse to give up their sources, journalists aren’t immune to being charged with libel.

Trump says that big newspapers are allowed to do what they want because they are “completely protected,” but that’s just not true. Proving libel, however, is difficult. According to the Associated Press Stylebook, a plaintiff must be able to prove these five things:

  • A defamatory statement was made.
  • The defamatory statement is a matter of fact, not opinion.
  • The defamatory statement is false.
  • The defamatory statement is about (“of and concerning”) the plaintiff.
  • The defamatory statement was published with the requisite degree of “fault.”

The “actual malice” clause is often cited in libel cases, but the term is a little tricky. The thought is that if a reporter or organization published something with the knowledge that it was indeed false, it was done so with “actual malice.”

Trump claims that these newspapers are publishing “false articles,” but if the articles are factual, and merely contain content that he finds displeasing, it’s not libel.

Reporters are allowed to comment with opinion. Again, from the AP Stylebook:

The right of fair comment has been summarized as follows: “Everyone has a right to comment on matters of public interest and concern, provided they do so fairly and with an honest purpose. Such comments or criticism are not libelous, however severe in their terms, unless they are written maliciously. Thus it has been held that books, prints, pictures and statuary publicly exhibited, and the architecture of public buildings, and actors and exhibitors are all the legitimate subjects of newspapers’ criticism, and such criticism fairly and honestly made is not libelous, however strong the terms of censure may be.” (Hoeppner v. Dunkirk Pr. Co., 1930.)

Accurate reporting, no matter how distasteful it may feel to certain people, is a critical part of our democracy. The fact that a leading Presidential candidate wants to upset the balance is worrisome.

However, as with a lot of his comment, Trump is speaking to something that a President can’t actually control. Not only is Congress the branch of government in charge of laws, there are no federal libel laws. Libel is defined differently, state-to-state.

Loosening these laws is a troubling thought. Donald Trump can surely outgun just about any media organization on the planet when it comes to funding legal fights. The implication that he’d try to bend legislation for personal gain shouldn’t be surprising at this point, but it is terrifying.