Articles Feature

Hacked Emails a Nightmare for Juan Williams

by richard13312

Angry Trump Backers Call Leaked Cell Number

AT&T Merger Considerations: Diversity, Big Media

Journalists Charged in Standing Rock Protests

3 Unity Groups to Weigh Concurrent Conventions

More Cuts at Gannett, Wall Street Journal

News Service Denies Possibility of Right-Wing Link

Short Takes


Evan Axelbank of WTVT-TV in Tampa, Fla., tweets Monday about a frightening “exchange” between CNN reporter Jim Acosta and a Donald J. Trump supporter as Trump seeks votes in Florida.

Angry Trump Backers Call Leaked Cell Number

The most recent batch of hacked emails distributed by WikiLeaks included the cell phone number of Fox News commentator Juan Williams, prompting supporters of Donald Trump to call the number at all hours to insult Williams and accuse him of being a Democratic Party stooge, Williams wrote on Monday.

The incident follows criticism of WikiLeaks not only for accepting unauthenticated material that U.S. officials say was hacked by Russian intelligence agencies, but also for distributing it without editing to protect sensitive personal information.

“National Security Agency contractor turned whistle-blower Edward Snowden chided WikiLeaks on Thursday for its indiscriminate approach to leaking information, barely a week after the antisecrecy organization published 20,000 emails that were obtained in a hacking from the Democratic National Committee,” Michelle Mark wrote for Business Insider on July 29, after the leak of the latest batch of emails began.

Credit: Fox News Channel
Juan Williams (Credit: Fox News Channel)

“The organization possesses a ‘hostility to even modest curation,’ Snowden wrote on Twitter.

“WikiLeaks has attracted harsh criticism for failing to curate the information it leaks based on what is legitimately in the public’s interest. The organization has also made it a policy not to redact sensitive personal information that may be contained in the documents it exposes. . . .”

The leaks presented a quandary for news media, Jim Rutenberg wrote Sunday for the  New York Times.

“The Russians seem to be using the United States’ free press — a great symbol of our democracy — against it while setting up an impossible choice for American newsrooms: Run with the stolen and in many cases unverified correspondence and potentially assist an audacious Russian attempt to disrupt a presidential election, or decline to print it and betray their mission to combat the great political fog machine. . . .”

Williams, writing in the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill, told readers:

“My cell phone started ringing before dawn in Las Vegas last Wednesday.

“At first, I thought frat boys had found my number and decided to prank me on the morning of the final debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The flood of anonymous calls began politely, checking to see if it was really me. Then they sank into rude and threatening language.

“By 4 a.m., I figured out that a new batch of hacked emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, had been released, including a note I wrote to Podesta with my cell number.

“By dawn, I had new appreciation for the phrase ‘your cell phone is blowing up.’ It literally did not stop ringing with phone calls, buzzing with text messages, chiming with new email.

“The barrage of crude suggestions about me — ‘ignorant, alcoholic and token black on Fox that needs to go,’ — was interspersed with cheerleading: ‘Trump Will Win,’ ‘TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP…’ and ‘Juan, you are a piece of … just wait till TRUMP wins by landslide.’

“But there was one serious line of criticism of my journalism in the anonymous text messages. The Trump supporters took my email to Podesta as proof that I am a ‘liberal stooge,’ who is guilty of ‘continued deceit.’

“ ‘Now we know you are as corrupt as all the rest,’ one Trump-backer wrote.

“Another concluded: ‘You are a sell-out, Criminal Clinton-crony.’ A more poetic version read: ‘How’s it feel being in Podesta’s pocket? Dark in there? If journalists have to kiss ass to get in, that’s ridiculous. In three weeks we will see that those polls were cooked.’ . . . ”

Williams explained that he interacts with sources of all political persuasions.

“At that point I was similarly talking with the people running Jeb Bush’s effort on the Republican side and having lunch with Ed Rollins, who later became head of the Great America super-PAC, a pro-Trump group. I was also guilty of sitting down with other Washington journalists to talk with Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. I went to Nevada to attend a Bernie Sanders rally and briefly chat with him. . . .”

He concluded his column with a reference to last week’s presidential candidate face-off.

“At the debate, Clinton said Trump is ‘talking down our democracy.’ She is right,” Williams wrote. “Journalists — including me — now fall into Trump and Putin’s autocratic worldview as pawns of their foes.

“Trump really is ‘talking down’ the idea of a free press and honest journalism. I can tell you from personal experience.”

An AT&T employee recorded this talk by CEO Randall Stephenson on diversity and inclusion. He received a standing ovation. (Credit: YouTube.com)

AT&T Merger Considerations: Diversity, Big Media

The proposed $85.4 billion acquisition of Time Warner by AT&T might pit advocates of diversity against opponents of big media consolidation.

“ATT is a diverse American company with roots in the community,” Kim Keenan, president and CEO of the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council, which advocates for diversity in the telecom industry, told Journal-isms by email Monday. “Expanding that diversity model to the content area is a very good thing.”

However, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists plans to join other groups that have opposed further media consolidation, Brandon Benavides, president of NAHJ, said by email.

“NAHJ is against media consolidation. We believe there should be diversity among media owners. Just as we opposed the COMCAST/NBC merger, we oppose the proposed AT&T and CNN merger.

“At our next board meeting, I’ll motion for a resolution opposing the AT&T and CNN merger,” Benavides said. That meeting takes place Dec. 10 in Las Vegas.

The 2011 acquisition of NBCUniversal by Comcast will be foremost in the minds of most who consider the proposed Time Warner-AT&T acquisition.

“The pairing brings together AT&T’s millions of wireless and pay-television subscribers with Time Warner’s deep media lineup including networks such as CNN, TNT, the prized HBO channel and Warner Bros. film and TV studio,” Thomas Gryta and Keach Hagey reported Saturday for the Wall Street Journal in breaking the story of the agreement.

“A merger of the companies would be the most ambitious marriage of content and distribution in the media and telecom industries since Comcast Corp.’s purchase of NBCUniversal and would create a behemoth to rival that cable giant. A rigorous regulatory review is expected and the acquisition of Time Warner likely wouldn’t close until late 2017, people close to the process said.

“Regulators have indicated misgivings about the prior Comcast-NBCU deal — in particular, whether obligations placed on Comcast were tough enough and enforceable — so it is unclear if they will be willing to bless another such merger. At the very least, former regulatory officials say there could be significant conditions placed on the combination. . . .”

AT&T Inc.’s Chief Executive Randall Stephenson made news last month when he told employees, “Our communities are being destroyed by racial tension and we are too polite to talk about it” and received a standing ovation, Thomas Gryta reported Sept. 29 for the Wall Street Journal.

“It is a difficult, tough issue. It’s not pleasant to discuss. It takes work, it takes time, it takes emotion,” he said, “but we have to start communicating and if this is a dialogue that is going to begin at AT&T, I felt like it probably ought to start with me.”

About 43 percent of the company’s more than 270,000 U.S. workforce is nonwhite, according to an AT&T report.

Salvador Rodriguez wrote Sept. 30 for inc.com, “Stephenson is the epitome of how a CEO of a company trying to become more diverse should act. His direct involvement in helping employees sympathize and understand one another sets a tone that the rest of AT&T’s more than 200,000 employees can follow. . . .”

Matt Wood, policy director of the Free Press advocacy organization, a longtime opponent of media consolidation, said in a statement Saturday:

“Any time you hear media executives talking about synergies, throwing around the business-babble that always accompanies these rumors, you know it’s time grab your wallet and hang on tight. Big mergers like this inevitably mean higher prices for real people, to pay down the money borrowed to finance these deals and their golden parachutes.

“The deals are driven by Wall Street’s insatiable desire for short term growth at any cost. And just as AT&T’s recent purchase of DirecTV was quickly followed by price hikes, there’s every reason to expect this potential tie-up would cost internet users and TV viewers dearly too. . . .”

Journalists Charged in Standing Rock Protests

“Activists and law enforcement clashed this weekend in North Dakota over construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, leading to dozens of arrests and a temporary road closure as protesters set up camp near the pipeline’s proposed path,” Ralph Ellis and Emanuella Grinberg reported Monday for CNN.

“About 300 protesters trespassed Saturday on private property three miles west of State Highway 1806, along the pipeline right of way, the Morton County Sheriff’s Department said. At least 127 were arrested on various charges, including reckless endangerment, criminal trespass, engaging in a riot, assault on a peace officer and resisting arrest. . . .”

Alexa Erickson added Monday for collective-evolution.com:

“ ‘In Standing Rock, the cops are out of control,’ said Cooper Brinson, who is a staff attorney at Civil Liberties Defense Center. He cited accusations of humiliation, beatings by police, and unwarranted strip-searches of arrestees. He reported:

“ ‘The actions of police against the land and water protectors at Standing Rock are depraved, abusive, and disgraceful. They are exceedingly disrespectful and radically humiliating to the people who have occupied this land since time immemorial.’

“Brinson also claimed that police have seized sacred tribal drums and tools that belong to Native American journalists.

“The consistent increase of protestors against DAPL has pressured authorities to seek desperate and unnecessary measures, including the arrest of actor Shailene Woodley, and of Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman.

“The criminal charges initially given to Goodman were dismissed, however, many journalists still face charges for reporting on the DAPL protests, including four members of the Unicorn Riot media group who have been charged with misdemeanor, and three other journalists who are facing felony charges due to reporting on the protests. Emmy-winning documentarian Deia Schlosberg is one of them, and could potentially be sentenced to 45 years behind bars. . . .”

3 Unity Groups to Weigh Concurrent Conventions

Neal Justin, media critic of the Star Tribune in Minneapolis and member of the Asian American Journalists Association, on Saturday was elected president of Unity: Journalists for Diversity, the coalition of AAJA, the Native American Journalists Association and National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association.

Russell Contreras, left, and Neal Justin. (Credit: Unity)
Russell Contreras, left, and Neal Justin. (Credit: Unity)

The Unity board, meeting in Chicago, unanimously selected Justin to succeed Russell Contreras of the Associated Press as it endorsed a proposal that hearkened back to Unity’s early structure.

It “would allow AAJA, NLGJA, and NAJA to hold concurrent conventions in the same city. The plan calls for each alliance partner to hold its own conventions while UNITY organizes plenary events and a UNITY gala,” Unity said in a statement.

Unity began as a convention-only partnership, staging its first joint gathering in Atlanta in 1994. Each of the then-partners — the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, AAJA and NAJA — conducted its own activities while joining with its sister groups for others.

After the pullout of NABJ in 2011 and NAHJ in 2013, Unity reinvented itself as an organization that would no longer hold large conventions but instead program regional “summits” around the country. The Chicago summit, held Friday at Loyola University, attracted 80 participants.

However, according to the Unity statement, the board “unanimously voted to explore holding a joint national media summit in 2018 with its three alliance partners, and will examine inviting other journalism organization to participate.”

“. . . UNITY president Russell Contreras said the joint national media summit in 2018 could be one of the largest and most diverse gatherings of journalists in the country. . . .”

NABJ, the largest journalist of color organization, has already selected Detroit for its 2018 convention, however, NAHJ has not chosen a site. “Baltimore, Minneapolis, and Seattle are among the cities UNITY will explore as a host,” the Unity statement said.

Justin told Journal-isms by email, “This blueprint allows each group to serve its members as each [sees fit], while still finding elements where combining forces makes sense, such as a joint job fair and a shared opening reception.

“This plan reflects a new age, one that we believe will be embraced by all of our members, news outlets and sponsors. It will need approval from each organization’s individual boards.

“Much more to come in the spring.

“In addition, Unity will continue to look at opportunities to lend support and resources [toward] caucuses and workshops throughout the country, particularly in markets that are often overlooked and/or are facing a specific crisis that may be benefit from Unity facilitating a discussion.”

More Cuts at Gannett, Wall Street Journal

“Gannett, the largest U.S newspaper company, is cutting another two percent of its workforce,” Ken Doctor reported Monday for Politico. “That cut, which should total about 350 or more positions throughout the company, was made official in an internal memo . . . to Gannett employees by CEO Bob Dickey moments ago.

“On Friday, POLITICO had reported [‘Gannett approaches possible billion dollar deal to buy Tronc – and layoffs, too’] the layoffs and other cost reductions would be announced this week. . . .”

Meanwhile, “The Wall Street Journal is offering all employees in its news division the option to take buyouts, according to an internal memo obtained by CNBC,” Katie Little, Antonio José Vielma and Christine Wang reported Friday for CNBC.

“Reuters first reported the news on Friday.

“The paper, which is owned by News Corp., is “seeking a substantial number of employees” to take the buyouts, according to a memo from Gerard Baker, its editor-in-chief.

” ‘In order to limit the number of involuntary layoffs, we will be offering all news employees around the world — management and non-management — the option to elect to take an enhanced voluntary severance benefit,’ Baker said in the memo. . . .”

News Service Denies Possibility of Right-Wing Link

“A right-leaning nonprofit has proposed an 11th-hour effort to place news articles critical of Hillary Clinton and other Democrats in black newspapers in the runup to the November election,” Darren Sands of BuzzFeed News reported Saturday, citing “sources.”

However, Andre M. Johnson, co-founder of the Urban News Service, which produces articles for placement in the black press, emphatically denied as “false and simply not true” any suggestion that the service would be used for such purposes. “We don’t write about politics,” Johnson told Journal-isms by telephone. “We can’t endorse in primaries or get involved in any political activity” or it would risk losing its 501(c)(3) nonprofit tax status.

Letter to Ben Smith, editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, sent Sunday byRichard Miniter, chief executive officer of the
American Media Institute, is in the Comments section.

Short Takes

Darren Sands
Darren Sands

Facebook users: “Like” “Richard Prince’s Journal-isms” on Facebook.

Follow Richard Prince on Twitter @princeeditor

Richard Prince’s Journal-isms originates from Washington. It began in print before most of us knew what the internet was, and it would like to be referred to as a “column.” Any views expressed in the column are those of the person or organization quoted and not those of any other entity.
Send tips, comments and concerns to Richard Prince at journal-isms-owner@yahoogroups.com

To be notified of new columns, contact journal-isms-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and tell us who you are.

 

Related posts

Book Notes: Best Sellers, Uncovered Treasures, Overlooked History

richard

‘What Do You Call a Black Man With a PhD?’

richard

Imus Is Gone, but How About What He Represented?

richard

1 comment

richard October 25, 2016 at 2:07 pm

On “News Service Denies Possibility of Right-Wing Link”

Letter to Ben Smith, editor-in-chief, BuzzFeed

From Richard Miniter, chief executive officer, American Media Institute

Ben,

We have both written tough pieces over the years that made the subjects of our stories howl. It’s the business. We both tend to shrug it off and say to ourselves: “I guess those guys can’t take fair criticism.”

But, every once is long while, we both know that there is a legitimate case of journalistic malpractice. This is one of those rare cases.

Buzzfeed’s Darren Sands levelled accusations of illegal activity (“suppressing” African-American votes) and spreading “rightwing propaganda as news” against my nonprofit without a single atom of evidence. He relies two anonymous sources who were admittedly speculating without any personal knowledge or documentation and appear to have a financial motivation to mislead. At the same time, Sands was given on-the-record denials without any wiggle room from both myself and Niger Innis, one of our board members, as well as access to other witnesses and documents. Tunnel-visioned, Sands refused to acknowledge the mountain of evidence that refutes his thesis. This lack of balance mars his reporting and harms our business.

Urban News Service: the Real Story

In reality, Urban News Service has published more than 120 articles over the past 18 months in some 214 African-American newspapers and magazines, including Ebony, Jet, Monarch, and Heart&Soul. None of those articles say anything about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or recommend that any person vote one way or the other. (All of those articles are available for free on our website and Sands was repeatedly invited to read those articles. Our computer records show that he did not.) Indeed, Urban News Service limits itself to covering black entrepreneurs, community heroes, school reformers and the occasional cases of government waste or abuses of the public trust. We call those our “five pillars.”

Why would so many African-American publications voluntarily run our content if it is all part of some secret plot to shrink the black vote or make black people tune into Sean Hannity? Does Sands’ claim even make sense?

How are black editors suppressing the black vote?

Each of the 214 African-American newspapers in our network freely decides for itself which articles to run and which to set aside. We don’t own them or control them or pay them or even influence them. It is hard to believe that the voluntary decisions of hundreds of individual African-American editors amounts to an effort to suppress the black vote or spread “rightwing propaganda.” Exactly how is that supposed to work?

If Sands’ were right, why can’t he find even one African-American editor to come forward and say he has turned down our content because of its “secret agenda”?

Urban News staff: 3 times more Left than Right

What’s more, we pointed out to Sands that the staff of our Urban News Service is politically diverse and, if anything, skews Left. Consider: the head of the Urban News Service is Joe Louis Ruffin, who ran Rev. Al Sharpton’s presidential campaign and ran Virginia’s get-out-the-vote for Obama in 2012. The head of our distribution department, which handles relations with the black papers, is Andre Johnson, former press spokesman for Mayor Marion Barry and Rev. Al Sharpton. One of editors is Deroy Murdock, a Fox News contributor, and another is Eric Easter, former editor of Ebony. There are no other editors or executives at Urban News. In short, three editors and executives who lean left and one who leans right. Hardly fertile ground for a rightwing conspiracy. Sands does not mention these exculpatory facts, either.

By the way, each of these people have spent a lifetime encouraging black Americans to vote, some while in the pay of Democratic presidential campaigns. They are the wrong people to hire if you want to “suppress” the black vote.

Urban News reporters come from the Washington Post, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Newsday and Time magazine—not exactly bastions of voter suppression or rightwing propaganda. Some are Pulitzer Prize and Emmy Award winners.

None of these key facts were cited in Sands’ article because they contradict his thesis. His selective reporting misleads the reader and damages our reputation.

Sands’ supposed Smoking Gun

Next, Sands says he has a document that purports to show voter suppression. Attached is that document. It doesn’t even mention voting nor does it talk about voter suppression or rightwing propaganda. Instead, it is a straightforward request for a grant for a non-profit news operation. Since we do not accept funds from governments or corporations (including lobbying and PR firms), we rely on grants from foundations and philanthropists.

Yes, the one-pager does mention “swing states”—the only vaguely political language that it uses—because that’s what the prospective donor asked us to concentrate our proposal on those five states. We saw no conflict because we believe that the black community in those states would be interested in news on black entrepreneurs, school reformers and so forth. The one-pager says nothing about voting or voter suppression because it simply has nothing to do with voting or voter suppression. Presenting news stories is a far cry from political activity or voter suppression.

Sands’ voter-suppression thesis is just plain dumb. How do news stories lower voter turnout? Sands never explains that non sequitur. In the real world, there are decades of studies showing that news consumption boosts voter turnout.

Most importantly, the document clearly promises news stories to be funded by a $50,000 grant, not advertisements or op-eds. It doesn’t even refer to ads or op-eds in any way. Yet Sands is writing about an advertising campaign. Huh? How does he get from here to there?

The document—Sands’ alleged smoking gun—speaks for itself. It promises more of the same kind of content that Urban News has been supplying since its founding in 2014. Read it for yourself and you will see what I mean.

Anonymous Sources with Motives to Lie

Without any evidence to support his crazy claim, Sands knows he needs something… so he trots out his anonymous sources. These “sources” have no evidence (because there is none), so they offer unfounded suspicions. They do not claim to be Urban News insiders or have had any contact with Urban News editors or executives or claim to have been in a meeting where Urban News leaders were present. These anonymous sources offer no basis of any kind for their wild claims. So why does Sands think that they have any credibility at all? He never says.

Indeed, these anonymous sources (if they exist) appear to be certain Republicans who make money from selling political ads. They have an economic motive to mislead and to use Sands because they mistakenly believe that Urban News Service is a rival of their’s. They foolishly believe they are using Sands to knock off a rival when they plainly have no idea at all what Urban News actually does. Why is Sands letting himself and Buzzfeed be used?

Misquoting Chavis

Then, Sands offers up Dr. Benjamin Chavis of the National Newspaper Publishers Association, the nation’s largest group of black publishers. (Urban News does not distribute through the NNPA, but it enjoys friendly relations with it and buys sponsorships for its semi-annual meetings.) In his quoted remarks, Chavis is talking about an advertising deal. He has clearly been quoted out of context.

Urban News is not now and never has been involved in any advertising effort of any kind anywhere on Earth. Nor does Chavis say otherwise. So why is he in the story? It appears he is only there is cover for Sands’ faceless sources, a lone on-the-record person whose words can be twisted into seemingly supporting Sands’ cockeyed view.

There is a tiny particle of truth to Sands’ claim. One of our staff did refer Dr. Chavis to an independent advertising broker, who apparently tried to get some advertising for Chavis’ member papers from a political organization. So what? A telephone referral does not put Urban News in the political advertising business or align it with the political interests that may or may not be interested in buying ads in the black press. Haven’t you ever referred a business acquaintance to another business? That referral establishes nothing. And that is probably why Chavis is quoted in the story saying there is “no connection” between Urban News and NNPA; he is saying that there is no business relationship related to advertising. In other words, he is undermining, not supporting, Sands’ theory.

Apparently no ads were ever sold and no deal ever struck. So nothing happened, as far as we know and as far as Sands reports. So where is the story? Why malign us for something that has never even happened?

Besides, isn’t it a bit crazy for the head of the nation’s largest association of African-American publications to be involved in a secret plan to stop black people from voting? Does this even pass the laugh test?

Other Signs of Sands’ Sloppiness

Also, Sands is making definitive statements about future actions—another clear logical problem. The future, by its nature, is unknowable. Does Sands have a crystal ball? How does he know that Urban News intends to break with its entire history and suddenly go to the exotic land of voter suppression and propaganda? Isn’t the best bet about future activity the continuation of past activity? Has Sands watched “Minority Report” too many times and thinks he can detect “pre-crimes”?

In addition, Sands’ judgement seems poisoned with bias. He describes one of our news stories about a diverse inner-city Indianapolis school as “slightly right wing.” A positive piece about a majority-minority school–that doesn’t quote or refer to a single Republican– is somehow “rightwing”? How is that? The New York Times and Washington Post wrote about the very same school. Are their news stories “rightwing” too? This is a gratuitous smear of our news content without any basis or explanation.

So, at the very best interpretation, Sands is conflating a telephonic referral to an ad broker with a harmless fundraising memo while mixing in some anonymous sources (who may not even exist) and stirring in some bitter bile. Whatever this is, it isn’t journalism. There isn’t a single fact hitchhiking along for the ride.

The Scope of Sands’ Journalistic Malpractice

Nothing in my remarks below, or at any other place in this message, should be misinterpreted or misconstrued as promise of future litigation. We have no plans, at all, to file suit. I am merely pointing out that we would have a very strong case in the unlikely event that we went down that road, but we certainly not threatening any kind of legal action. I am surveying the legal landscape solely to illustrate the scale of Sands’ journalistic malpractice.

Since Sands was repeatedly supplied with emails and texts of on-the-record information that contradicted his thesis and he plowed ahead anyway, this is starting to look a lot like what lawyers call “reckless disregard for the truth.”

Nor does your reporter have much in the way of defense for this journalistic malpractice. Sands has no reasonable or good-faith basis, in his published article, for any of his outrageous claims. No documents, no admissions, no pattern of past practice, no accusation by a competent authority, no whistle-blower, no logical surmise. Even the anonymous sources he cites do not claim to have any direct knowledge. And his solitary on-the-record source is actually contradicting him. Never have so many pixels of allegation been balanced on so little.

Further, his electronic statements before publication (which we have archived) show clear malice.

Finally, since AMI and its division Urban News Service are a 501 (c) (3) non-profit, which is barred by law from engaging in “electioneering,” Sands has effectively accused the organization of breaking the law. Without a conviction, an administrative fine or an indictment from a legal authority, Sands’ accusations of illegal or illicit activity looks a lot like “per se libel.”

In our industry, there are a lot of reasons why we customarily avoid accusing people of illegal activity without evidence, avoid publishing anonymous claims from supposed business rivals, avoid writing stories without firm foundations in fact, and try to avoid biased statements in communications with sources. Sands has gone far outside the standards of professional decency.

The Solution

Could I suggest that you take steps to mitigate the considerable damage to the reputation of both American Media Institute and its division, Urban News Service, by putting an editor’s note on the article retracting the claims of voter suppression, rightwing propaganda and other illegal or illicit activity? Issuing a press release to this effect would also be helpful.

I am open to any other ideas that you may have to undo the damage done to us.

At the very least, you could say that this story was published before Sands had a chance to complete his reporting. We are not asking you to throw yourself on your sword. We just want to undo the damage done to us before we lose more valuable relationships with African-American news outlets across the country, which could put the Urban News Service out of business.

The Big Picture

Finally, one of the problems of DC’s “red team-blue team” mentality is that is sees every single thing as a partisan weapon. Sands actually missed a much bigger and more interesting story: a left-right partnership to produce non-political stories for the struggling African-American press. Yet that “red team-blue team” mentality is so insidious that it makes even honest non-partisan efforts seem as if they are Trojan Horses for some cause or other. Sometimes cynics are the real naïfs.

If Sands had actually read our content or come to visit our editors, he would have seen that his anonymous sources (if they exist) were playing him and he would have seen the real story of a unique “man-bites-dog” news operation in which political opposites have teamed up to show the positive side of the black community. Pity that old-school shoe-leather reporting is so out of style. While he did us a tremendous disservice and caused us serious economic harm, he also cheated himself out of a much more interesting “strange bedfellows” story.

To be clear, we are not asking for any action to be taken against Sands or any Buzzfeed editor or making any demand for money damages. We are just asking Buzzfeed to do what is right, to do what you would want done if the situation were reversed.

Please let me know what steps that you plan to take to undo this baseless harm to our reputation and economic interests.

Richard Miniter| Chief Executive Officer

American Media Institute

109 N. Henry St. Alexandria, VA 22314

Office: 703-872-7840

http://www.americanmediainstitute.com

Reply

Leave a Comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.