Loading...
This week, Nieman Lab hit publish on a deep dive into what went wrong at the Houston Landing. Staff writer Sophie Culpepper talked to more than a dozen former Landing employees and nonprofit news experts for the piece.
As Sophie notes, the Houston Landing launched with $20 million and represented one of the largest investments in American local journalism in memory. Although leadership at the Landing told Sophie they’d “basically moved on” as they declined to answer questions, we think it’s worth asking what led to the local nonprofit newsroom’s closure less than two years after its ambitious launch. So far, Nieman Lab readers seem to agree.
I hope you’ll check out Sophie’s piece â and other work from the rest of the Nieman Lab crew this week â below.
— Sarah Scire
What went wrong at the Houston Landing?âWe tried to be too much, too fast, for too many people.â By Sophie Culpepper. |
A pressure test for AI: Dow Jones makes a translation push for real-time financial newsDow Jones Newswires launches an AI-powered French language service, following the rollout of Korean and Japanese last year. By Andrew Deck. |
Investigating cold cases: How two journalists dug into decades-old civil rights era killings“In many active cold cases, law enforcement wonât share case files with the press or public because the investigation is ongoing. Both reporters said that they instead had to obtain access by filing FOIA requests.” By Ngozi Monica Cole. |
Inside Grist’s new toolkit for navigating disastersâThe original audience for this was people who might experience disasters…thatâs basically anybody these days.â By Neel Dhanesha. |
ABC and CBS settlements with Trump are a dangerous step toward the commander in chief becoming the editor-in-chiefPrevious presidents have sought to apply editorial pressure on broadcast journalists, but none of those presidents won millions from the corporations that aired ethical news reporting in the public interest. By Michael J. Socolow. |
A thousand days in, there may be an end in sight for the newsroom strike at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette“I’m feeling…tired. Mad. Broke.” By Sarah Scire. |
“I worry especially that too many in and around public broadcasting are reacting to this watershed moment by repeating the critical error made by those metro papers: trying to preserve as much of what has gone before as possible, rather than seizing the moment to reinvent a system, and many of its components, that for far too long had remained unvarying and poorly adapted to a changing media landscape.”
The New York Times / Elena Shao and Benjamin MullinWhere Congressâs cuts threaten access to PBS and NPR →“The cuts are a time bomb for the public media system. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has disbursed funding for stations through September. After that, more than 100 combined TV and radio stations that serve millions of Americans in rural pockets of the country will be at risk of going dark, according to an analysis from Public Media Company, an advisory firm.”
Variety / Brian SteinbergCBS to cancel “Late Show With Stephen Colbert” citing “financial decision” →Colbert’s âLate Showâ has often been TVâs most-watched late night program.
Columbia Journalism Review / Lucy SchillerCovering measles for Mennonites →“For some, the MPOST is one of the only pieces of printed information allowed inside the home, besides ‘the Bible, catechisms, or hymnals.'”
Variety / Todd SpanglerFour New York Times culture critics will be reassigned as paper seeks replacements →“While it has long been the practice in the newsroom to shift the roles of reporters, editors and bureau chiefs to bring different ideas and experience to important beats and coverage areas, weâve done this far less with our roster of critics.” (Jon Pareles had been chief pop critic since 1988.) “But it is important to bring different perspectives to core disciplines as we help our coverage expand beyond the traditional review.”
Platformer / Casey NewtonThe campaign to make it illegal for ChatGPT to criticize Trump →“On one hand, tech platforms would be on solid ground if they resisted a plainly unconstitutional request to change the output of their chatbotâs speech. But most of them have made the calculation that it is better to quietly appease Republican elected officials than to loudly oppose them. And thatâs how a request that is plainly illegal winds up being effective anyway.”
Nieman Lab | View in browser | Unsubscribe
You are receiving this daily newsletter because you signed up for for it at niemanlab.org.
Nieman Journalism Lab · Harvard University · 1 Francis Ave. · Cambridge, MA 02138 · USA
Nonce: eb20fe4d03f828cf179623e27594b15bLoading...
Loading...
