The New York Times / Kevin Draper
ESPN employees say racism endures behind the camera →“In interviews, more than two dozen current and former ESPN employees, including many who spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared punishment, described a company that projected a diverse outward face, but did not have enough Black executives, especially ones with real decision-making power. They said the company did not provide meaningful career paths for Black employees behind the camera and made decisions based on assumptions that its average viewer is an older white man, in spite of its audience trends.”
The New York Times / Mark Tracy and Ben Smith
Wall Street Journal staff members push for big changes in news coverage →“In a June 23 letter to the editor in chief, Matt Murray, a group identifying itself only as ‘members of the WSJ newsroom’ said the paper must ‘encourage more muscular reporting about race and social inequities,’ and laid out detailed proposals for revising its news coverage. ‘In part because WSJ’s coverage has focused historically on industries and leadership ranks dominated by white men, many of our newsroom practices are inadequate for the present moment,’ the letter said.”
The Atlantic / Hannah Giorgis
A deeply provincial view of free speech →“There’s something darkly comical about the fretfulness of these elite petitioners. It’s telling that the censoriousness they identify as a national plague isn’t the racism that keeps Black journalists from reporting on political issues, or the transphobia that threatens their colleagues’ lives. The letter denounces ‘the restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society,’ strategically blurring the line between these two forces. But the letter’s chief concern is not journalists living under hostile governments, despite the fact that countries around the world impose draconian limits on press freedom.”
The New York Times / Ben Smith
While America looks away, autocrats crack down on digital news sites →“The overriding lesson from President Trump’s admirers around the world is obvious: that the ultimate, most severe threats to a free press come from governments, which, to justify their actions, have seized opportunistically on causes ranging from requiring platforms to moderate posts to cracking down on ‘fake news’ to imposing new licensing requirements.
The Wall Street Journal / Sarah E. Needleman
As offices reopen amid coronavirus, workers clash over masks, cubicle barriers, and Lysol →“For the most part, employees have no legal recourse against colleagues who they feel aren’t doing enough — or the opposite, going overboard — to prevent the spread of the pathogen, said Stanford Law School professor Alison Morantz. But that could change, given that the pandemic is an unprecedented modern-day event. ‘Maybe new state laws or creative legal theories will emerge,’ she said. ‘This is uncharted territory.'”
Nieman Reports / Christina Aushana
The New Yorker / Michael Luo
How can the press best serve a democratic society? →“Democracy may well depend on finding a sustainable business model for a slower, more deliberative form of news. If ‘objectivity’ has lost its usefulness as a shorthand for journalism’s aspirations, and if the meaning of ‘moral clarity’ is unclear, then perhaps quality, rigor, and depth could be worthy ideals.”
Foreign Policy / Matt Warner
A take on journalism’s class problem in the UK →“For journalists without her level of connections, a viral sex tweet would be an embarrassment that might cost them commissions or even jobs. It’s the kind of things that BIPOC reporters, and working-class ones, warn each other against, conscious of how contingent and fragile their positions are. Gill’s tweet exemplifies the idea that class gives you a fallback option.”
Chicago Tribune / Robert Channick
Financial Times / Hannah Murphy
Inside Facebook’s exclusive clubs for its top advertisers →“The former global client council member, who asked not to be named because Facebook requires members to sign non-disclosure agreements, said that the company would privately ‘disclose stuff on the edge of being material public information’ that was ‘interesting and insider…but not tradable’ so that having a seat at the table was essential. But the person labelled the group a ‘controlling mechanism’ for ‘manipulating people to…[overlook] obvious issues.'”