US President Donald Trump. Photo / AP
There's a media phenomenon old-time blogger Mickey Kaus calls "overism": articles in the week before the election whose premise is that even before the votes are counted, we know the winner — in this case, Joe Biden.
I plead guilty to writing a column with that tacit premise. I spent last week asking leading figures in media to indulge in the accursed practice of speculating about the consequences of an election that isn't over yet. They all read the same polls as you do and think that President Donald Trump will probably lose.
But many leaders in news and media have been holding their breaths for the election — and planning everything from retirements to significant shifts in strategy for the months to come, whoever wins.
Trump, after all, succeeded in making the old media great again, in part through his obsession with it. His riveting show allowed much of the television news business, in particular, to put off reckoning with the technological shifts — toward mobile devices and on-demand consumption — that have changed all of our lives. But now, change is in the air across a news landscape that has revolved around the president.
And given the jittery preelection timing, I'll try to keep these items short so you can check Nate Silver's Twitter feed in between reading them.
Before the 2016 election, Andrew Lack, then the head of NBC News, warned colleagues that MSNBC's revenue would take a 30 per cent hit if — when — Hillary Clinton was elected, two people familiar with the remark told me. (After the debacle in 2016, few in the media wanted to be quoted speculating about what happens after the election.)
Well, TV sure dodged that bullet! CNN's chief, Jeff Zucker, later told his Los Angeles bureau that Trump had bought the declining business four more years, a person who was there recalled. (A spokesperson for CNN said that Zucker would not have speculated on future ratings.) And it has been a profitable time for cable news, a record-breaking year for political books and, generally, a bonanza for the legacy media that live rent-free in the president's head.
That may be ending. MSNBC and other outlets that thrived on resistance to Trump may see their audiences fade, said Ken Lerer, a veteran investor and adviser to old media and new, who also predicted that The New York Times would "cool off" as you, dear reader, find other things to do.
And the people who continue to pay attention to the news will stay online.
"The pandemic has advanced digital by four or five years and it will not go back to what it was," Lerer said.
In corporate media, that means what Cesar Conde, the new chair of the NBCUniversal News Group, has been calling an "omnichannel" strategy, as brands like MSNBC no longer see themselves primarily as television. For new outlets, it's an opportunity to press their advantage of being native to this new world.
"Many media organisations have spent the past four years generally failing to adapt to a campaign, a president, a White House and an administration that is extremely online," said Stacy-Marie Ishmael, editorial director of the nonprofit Texas Tribune. "We are only, four years in, getting to grips with how to contend with rhetorical techniques, messaging and communications steeped in misinformation and propaganda."
Others predicted a deeper cultural shift — from Stephen Colbert's biting satire back to the sillier Jimmy Fallon, from politics back to entertainment, whenever the studios can get production running again. But some veterans of the business of politics doubt that news coverage can really calm down — or that consumers can look away.
"If Biden is elected, conservatives will be energised, not retreating," said Eric Nelson, editorial director of Broadside Books, HarperCollins' conservative imprint. "Trump will keep tweeting, and new scandals from his presidency will keep unfolding for well into 2022. By the time all that chaos and nonsense runs out, Trump could be running again for 2024."
You aren't the only one just barely hanging on until Election Day. Most of the top leaders of many name-brand American news institutions will probably be gone soon, too. The executive editor of The Los Angeles Times, Norm Pearlstine, is looking to recruit a successor by the end of the year, he told me. Martin Baron, executive editor of The Washington Post, just bought a house out of town and two Posties said they expected him to depart next year. He hasn't given notice, The Post's spokesperson, Kristine Coratti Kelly, said. And the executive editor of The New York Times, Dean Baquet, is on track to retire by the time he turns 66 in 2022, two Times executives told me, dampening speculation that he might stay longer.
Over in big TV, Zucker, of CNN, has signaled that he's frustrated with WarnerMedia, and broadcast television is overflowing with speculation about how long the network news chiefs will stay on, though no executives have suggested imminent departures. "Everyone is assuming there's going to be turnover everywhere, and everyone is absolutely terrified about who is going to come in," one television industry insider said.
This isn't just the usual revolving door. Newsroom leaders face strong pulls in conflicting directions. Outlets all along the spectrum, from the staid BBC to the radical Intercept, have been moving to reassert final editorial control over their journalists. But newsroom employees — like a generation of workers across many industries — are arriving with heightened demands to be given more of a say in running their companies than in years past. New leaders may find opportunities to resolve some of the heated newsroom battles of the last year, or they may walk into firestorms.
Pearlstine, the only one talking openly of his departure, told me that the new "metrics for success might be different as well — issues such as inclusiveness, such as being anti-racist, such as really commanding some new platform, be it podcasts or video or newsletters, in addition to having journalistic credentials."
And, he said, the old top-down newsroom management is a thing of the past. "Consent of the governed is something you have to take pretty seriously," he said.
Wesley Lowery, a CBS News correspondent who has been a voice for more diverse and politically engaged journalism, said he had already seen signs of change.
"These big institutions very rarely come out and announce some big sweeping change — they say, 'We're not changing,' and they change," he said. "Even people who made a big deal about how the rebels were wrong are now conceding to the things we all wanted."
The right-wing cable channel has been riding high as the quasi-official White House network, though it has always been at its strongest when it's attacking Democrats — who seem poised to take power.
But the approaching election has executives around Lachlan Murdoch, Fox's chief executive, preparing to battle on several fronts: with left-wing critics, with what senior executives fear could be regulatory retribution from Democrats and perhaps most of all from James Murdoch, Lachlan's more liberal brother and critic, according to a person familiar with the company's plans.
And Lachlan Murdoch ends the election cycle as he began it: with no real control of the network's high-profile talent and an unusually low profile for a figure of his nominal political power. One data point: a surprised patron of the midtown power lunch spot Estiatorio Milos in late October reported overhearing Murdoch politely spelling his name to a hostess who didn't recognise him.
The battles over speech and censorship, sociologist Zeynep Tufekci tweeted recently, are becoming "attention wars." As recently as last week, senators were dragging in tech executives to complain about individual tweets, but the arguments are about to turn more consequential. The platforms are increasingly being pushed to disclose how content travels and why — not just what they leave up and what they take down.
"We're in this brave new world of content moderation that's outside the take-down/leave-up false binary," said Evelyn Douek, an expert on the subject and a lecturer at Harvard Law School.
In practice, Twitter, Facebook and the other big platforms are facing two sources of pressure. The first is from Australia and the European Union, where Germany has become the latest to push toward tight copyright restrictions.
"We are now at an inflection point with the digital platforms," Rod Sims, chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, told me in an email. "The tide has turned all around the world as governments and antitrust enforcers now see the size of the challenge ahead."
The second source of pressure is the United States, where Trump has pushed to repeal or revise Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from being liable for what they publish while allowing them to moderate content. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, a co-author of the 1996 law who would head the powerful Finance Committee if Democrats take control of the Senate, said he was skeptical that changes to Section 230 would actually stop misinformation or what conservatives claim is censorship. And he noted that Facebook's chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, has said he supports some revisions, too.
"He made his money, and now he wants to pull up the ladder behind him," Wyden said in an interview Saturday. "The fact that Facebook, of all companies, is calling for changes to 230 makes you say, 'Wait a second.'" Wyden said his priority when it comes to Big Tech in the new Congress would be privacy legislation.
Written by: Ben Smith
Photographs by: Mike Cohen and Erin Schaff
© 2019 THE NEW YORK TIMES
Pie Funds CIO Mike Taylor makes his annual picks for the year ahead.