Journalism

President Donald Trump spoke on July 19 with three New York Times reporters — Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman — in an exclusive interview in the Oval Office.

BAKER: I do want to come out, on the email, now that you have seen that email that said Russia’s government — I mean, how did you — did you interpret it that way?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I thought originally it might have had to do something with the payment by Russia of the DNC. Somewhere I heard that. Like, it was an illegal act done by the DNC, or the Democrats. That’s what I had heard. Now, I don’t know where I heard it, but I had heard that it had to do something with illegal acts with respect to the DNC. Now, you know, when you look at the kind of stuff that came out, that was, that was some pretty horrific things came out of that. But that’s what I had heard. But I don’t know what it means. All I know is this: When somebody calls up and they say, “We have infor—” Look what they did to me with Russia, and it was totally phony stuff.

[Later On.]
BAKER: This is why I want to come back to that email, because, like — does it concern you? Let’s say that the election didn’t change because of anything Russia did, which has been your point, right? You point —
TRUMP: By the way, it’s everybody.
BAKER: Right, your point is that Democrats are trying to use this as an excuse, fine. But did that email concern you, that the Russian government was trying something to compromise——
TRUMP: You know, Peter, I didn’t look into it very closely, to be honest with you.
BAKER: O.K.
TRUMP: I just heard there was an email requesting a meeting or something — yeah, requesting a meeting. That they have information on Hillary Clinton, and I said — I mean, this was standard political stuff.

At every White House news briefing since June 29 — and many before, too — President Donald Trump's spokesmen have ordered a room full of smartphone-toting journalists not to film the session or even broadcast live audio. On July 19, one reporter defied the White House by streaming live sound of the briefing online. Ksenija Pavlovic, a former political science teaching fellow at Yale who founded a news site called Pavlovic Today, used the Periscope app to stream audio of July 19's briefing. She tweeted a link to the feed. The sound quality was poor, but deputy White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders could be heard introducing Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short, who addressed reporters before Sanders took questions. Pavlovic's feed cut out after about 17 minutes, while Short was still talking, but she quickly resumed streaming and tweeted a new link that carried another 31 minutes.

On July 19, 2017, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing to examine the nominations of Ajit Pai, Jessica Rosenworcel, and Brendan Carr for seats on the Federal Communications Commission.

On March 7, President Donald Trump nominated Pai, the FCC’s current chairman, for a second five-year term ending June 30, 2021. Rosenworcel is nominated for a term that would end June 30, 2020. Carr, the current general counsel at the FCC, has actually been nominated for two terms, one expiring June 30, 2018 and the second ending June 30, 2023. Carr served as legal adviser to then-FCC Commissioner Pai for three years before Pai was named chairman and appointed Carr as general counsel.

Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) characterized the hearing as both an examination of the nominees and a FCC oversight hearing, “fulfilling a commitment I’ve made to hold regular, biannual oversight hearings of the Commission.” His opinions of the nominees: “In my view, the FCC will be in very good hands when all three of these nominees are confirmed.” He noted Chairman Pai’s efforts around transparency and FCC processes, network neutrality, and robocall prevention.

Sen Bill Nelson (D-FL), the committee’s ranking member, raised issues around all three nominations. Concerning Rosenworcel, he noted that she should not have been forced to step down from the FCC at the end of 2016 when the Senate failed to reconfirm her.

Sen. Nelson identified two concerns about Brendon Carr: 1) “two consecutive terms to which the Senate is being asked to confirm you would provide you with the longest single, initial period of service of any nominee to the FCC” and 2) “it is hard to recall a similar situation where someone was nominated to serve at the commission alongside, rather than to follow, their current boss.” He stressed that it is important to have commissioners who have independent voices and “ones who will fight for consumers and the public interest.” He later asked Carr to cite an issue that he and Chairman Pai disagree on – Carr failed to answer on more than one occasion. “Going forward, I’ll make my own decisions; I’ll call it the way I see it,” Carr said. “I think my record shows that I’m not a shrinking violet.” Sen. Nelson called that response “not confidence-building.”

Finally, Sen. Nelson congratulated Chairman Pai on some recent pro-consumer actions, but said, “[M]any view these most recent consumer protection actions as mere icing on what is otherwise an unpalatable cake. A cake constructed out of actions that eliminate competitive protections, that threaten dangerous industry consolidation, that make the Internet less free and less open, and that weaken critical consumer protections for those most vulnerable.”

Net Neutrality

Network neutrality and the FCC’s 2015 decision to classify broadband internet access service providers as telecommunications providers under Title II of the Communications Act were key issues for the hearing. In his opening remarks, Chairman Thune said,

“I am pleased that Chairman Pai has sought to hit the reset button on the 2015 Title II Order, because, as I have previously said, the FCC should do what is necessary to rebalance the agency’s regulatory posture under current law. I continue to believe, however, that the best way to provide long-term protections for the Internet is for Congress to pass bipartisan legislation. Two and a half years ago I put forward legislative principles and a draft bill to begin the conversation, and I stand ready and willing today to work toward finding a lasting legislative solution that will resolve the dispute over net neutrality once and for all.”

Two senators questioned the nominees about the impact of the Title II decision on broadband investment in the US. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) cited stats, offered by broadband providers, that investment has gone down. He took issue with a New York Times story that said investment had gone up since the 2015 order. He said that increase included foreign investment, some of which he said was spurred by the Title II disincentive to invest in the US, and that there was evidence that US infrastructure investment had declined precipitously.

On the other side was Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) who said that almost half of the venture capital funds, or about $25 billion, invested since 2015 was in Internet-related businesses, with broadband providers investing $87 billion, the highest rate in a decade. Sen Markey said investment and job creation are high, so there is no problem that rolling back Title II or reviewing net neutrality rules would fix.

Both senators asked Chairman Pai for his take on their respective views, but the chairman's answer was cautious given that he has an open proceeding before him and comments on his proposal to roll back Title II and review the rules are still coming in. He said that evidence of decreased investment was one of his concerns, but that the FCC was testing that theory, as well as the opposite, as part of its due diligence.

E-Rate

While Rosenworcel, Carr and Chairman Pai all generally agreed on the importance of the FCC's E-rate program -- which makes broadband services more affordable for schools and libraries -- they initially refrained from an outright promise not to cut its funding. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) had to ask Rosenworcel a second time before she explicitly said she would not reduce the funding for E-rate. Neither Pai nor Carr would make that commitment.

Broadband Deployment

The three nominees were largely unanimous on measures to expedite rural broadband like “dig once” policies, which require installation of conduits for fiber-optic cable when preparing infrastructure such as roads. The policies aim to reduce cost and limit wait times for installing fiber in different municipalities.

“I think it would be helpful for ‘dig once’ policies and similar policies to be the law of the land,” Chairman Pai told Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).

“The agency, working with local jurisdictions, should try to come up with a model code — one that includes policies like ‘dig once,’” Rosenworcel said. She added that there should be incentives built in for local communities to adopt the model.

Senators also pressed the three on the need for accurate coverage maps so that subsidies issued to companies to build out their infrastructure are actually targeted to the right places.

“I would hope to get your commitment that the commission will work to ensure that mapping data used at the FCC accurately accounts for on-the-ground mobile coverage,” said Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO). The nominees affirmed they are committed to working toward ensuring accurate data coverage moving forward.

First Amendment

Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) pressed all of the nominees on their commitment to the First Amendment in light of the many statements President Trump has made disparaging outlets covering his Administration. Sen. Udall pointed to a story that the White House could use AT&T’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner as a way to punish CNN for its stories and suggested the Administration might want to reward Sinclair by approving Sinclair’s purchase of Tribune television stations. Each of the nominees pledged to speak out against violence or intimidation against journalists. Chairman Pai reiterated that the White House had not contacted him about retaliating against negative news stories and said he would not do so if asked. And he promised that the FCC would not be used to punish media companies or reward others and would be troubled by any attempt to pressure it to do so.

"I have not directly had any conversations with anyone in the administration with respect to media regulatory proceedings," Chairman Pai said. "To the best of my knowledge, no one on my staff or in the FCC has indirectly had any such conversations as well."

“I have consistently stated that I believe … that First Amendment freedoms, including the freedom of the press, are critical,” Pai added. “If I were ever asked by anyone in the administration to take retaliatory action, for instance, in a media regulatory proceeding, I would not do so.”

Conclusion

If all of the hearing’s nominees are confirmed by the full Senate, the FCC would have a 3-2 Republican majority. Senators on the committee have until July 21 to submit additional questions for the nominees who will be given time to reply in writing.

“The pen is mightier than the sword.” It’s true. Every day I watch as journalists’ pens cut down Black lives. Last week in Bridgeport (CT), Aaron Tucker skipped the job interview he was traveling to and instead jumped from a city bus to save a stranger from a burning car — only to be referred to as an “ex-con” in a CBS News headline. Did this headline commit any factual errors? No. What it committed was worse: perpetuation of toxic racial bias.

References like “ex-con” reduce Black folks’ humanity in a way that White subjects rarely experience. Aaron Tucker could have been referred to as “resident,” “young father,” “community hero” or simply “man” to the exact same effect. What will it take for journalists to understand that Black lives are greater than a small portion of their deeds, worthy of the same grace and complexity of perception afforded to those who happen to be White? When will journalists take responsibility for the way they wield their swords?

[Commentary] Fakes in the world of print publishing are relatively easy to discredit if not always to spot. Inconsistencies, errors, and—perhaps most importantly—widely accessible originals, make the job of persuasively forging content a significant challenge. In digital publishing, however, even maintaining original content cannot be taken for granted.

Being able to identify genuine digital material is “a huge issue,” says David Schulz, a prominent First Amendment lawyer and director of the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School. Given the increasing sophistication of fake digital content, Schulz asks, “How do you prove something was ‘out there’? How do you prove it’s authentic?” If reputable news organizations digitally sign their content, it would increase the difficulty of creating fake news by raising doubts about material that isn’t similarly authenticated. Likewise, developing such a standard would support archives that can withstand attempts to reauthor history. Although the technical challenge is substantial, it’s also one that is important to take on, as new organizations strive to rebuild public trust and set their work apart from that of content mills and fake news factories.

[Susan McGregor is Assistant Director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism and Assistant Professor at Columbia School of Journalism.]

A majority of American voters trusts major media outlets more than President Trump, according to a new survey from a left-leaning polling firm. Fifty-four percent of Americans told Public Policy Polling they trust CNN more than Trump, while 39 percent said they trust the president more than the cable news network. Seven percent of voters said they were not sure. Majorities also said they trust ABC and NBC more than the commander in chief, at 56 percent apiece, while 38 percent responded to separate questions that they trust the president more than the news networks. Six percent said they were not sure in their responses. Fifty-five percent, meanwhile, said they trust The New York Times more than the president, while 38 percent chose Trump and 7 percent said they were not sure. And 53 percent said they trust The Washington Post more than the president, while 38 percent chose Trump and 9 percent were not sure.

[Commentary] On June 29, White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders held an on-camera press briefing. The White House hasn't done one since. That's more than 2 weeks on the calendar -- and 12 work days. That's bad. 12 days. Zero on-camera briefings. This is not an accident. What the White House is doing is working to kill off the daily press briefing -- a ritual that has long functioned as the best (and often only) way for reporters to get the White House on record and on video about various issues affecting the country and the world. And even in the increasingly common off-camera briefings -- which were a very occasional occurrence in past White Houses -- Sanders and White House press secretary Sean Spicer appear to be working hard to be, at best, unhelpful and, at worst, openly misleading.

Coy, cagy media folks often resort to vagueness when they don’t want to talk about money, e.g., “six figures,” “seven figures” and so on. However, the system breaks down with deals for distressed media properties, as “one figure” doesn’t really leave much room for the imagination. Still, that is the price range for the recent sale of Chicago Sun-Times by publisher Wrapports, LLC. It was acquired by an investment group led by Chicago alderman Edwin Eisendrath for the grand sum of $1. (The newsstand price for a single copy of the newspaper.) That's according to a report published by the newspaper, citing an unnamed source familiar with the deal.

The deal also includes the Chicago Reader and the weekly’s syndicated “Straight Dope” column. Both are being absorbed into Answers Media, a multimedia production company simultaneously acquired by Eisendrath. In fairness, that’s not the only financial commitment made by the buyers. As in a number of similar deals in recent years, the investment group, which includes several labor unions, agreed to assume an unspecified amount of debt. It also agreed to pony up $11.2 million in operating funds to demonstrate their intention to keep the newspaper a going concern. The symbolic price tag is reminiscent of a number of other deals over the last decade.

An executive at local broadcast TV giant Sinclair defended the company and lashed out against what he called "biased" news organizations that have "an agenda to destroy our reputation" in an internal memo. The memo, written by Sinclair's Vice President of News Scott Livingston and sent to Sinclair station news directors, said he wants to “dispel some of the myths” being reported about the organization. In the memo, Livingston lists out several storylines that have emerged around the Maryland-based television company and provides what he said are facts proving them false. They range from reports about their “must run” segments to morale at their Washington station WJLA. HBO late night host John Oliver also made Sinclair and its "must run" segments the focus of a 19 minute segment earlier in July.

President Donald Trump on July 16 slammed the media on Twitter before spending the afternoon at one of his golf courses and tuning in to Fox News in the evening. Here's what President Trump posted, in case you missed it: "HillaryClinton can illegally get the questions to the Debate & delete 33,000 emails but my son Don is being scorned by the Fake News Media?" "With all of its phony unnamed sources & highly slanted & even fraudulent reporting, #Fake News is DISTORTING DEMOCRACY in our country!" "The ABC/Washington Post Poll, even though almost 40% is not bad at this time, was just about the most inaccurate poll around election time!"

Complaints about polls and unnamed sources are standard fare from President Trump, but the president's team is plotting new, targeted attacks. In a report last week on the White House's response to news about Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer was this nugget from The Post's Philip Rucker and Ashley Parker: “A handful of Republican operatives close to the White House are scrambling to Trump Jr.’s defense and have begun what could be an extensive campaign to try to discredit some of the journalists who have been reporting on the matter. Their plan, as one member of the team described it, is to research the reporters’ previous work, in some cases going back years, and to exploit any mistakes or perceived biases. They intend to demand corrections, trumpet errors on social media and feed them to conservative outlets, such as Fox News.”