Digest 3/22/2021

Resigning from Teen Vogue, Facebook buys a way out, and more.

WHAT THE TEEN VOGUE FALLOUT SAYS ABOUT THE MEDIA LANDSCAPE

When it was announced Thursday that Alexi McCammond would no longer be Teen Vogue’s new editor-in-chief, electing instead to mutually part ways with the publication after an outcry over McCammond’s decade-old anti-Asian tweets, right-leaning outlets like Reason and some more mainstream publications presented the story as an example of the excesses of cancel culture. “America Has Forgotten How to Forgive,” laments a headline at The Atlantic, over a story that utterly misrepresents, however unintentionally, what unfolded at the magazine. The Atlantic attributes McCammond’s departure to a “coup d’état at Teen Vogue,” and claims the magazine staff “discovered [McCammond’s old tweets], spurned the apology, and revolted.” The word “revolt” links out to a statement from the Teen Vogue staff expressing concern over the tweets, solidarity with concerned readers, and hope that an “internal conversation will prove fruitful in maintaining the integrity granted to us by our audience.” Nowhere does the statement spurn McCammond’s apology or call for her resignation.

I spoke to a source within Condé Nast with knowledge of the situation at Teen Vogue. They described an abrupt process: while a few senior editors found out about McCammond’s appointment a few days before everyone else, most Teen Vogue staff were completely unaware of the choice until it was announced publicly. There was some immediate confusion over the appointment of a mainstream political reporter, signalling what seemed to be a departure from the magazine’s progressive bent. 

Then McCammond’s past tweets resurfaced, prompting an explosion of social media comments directed towards the staff, expressing concern over the new EIC’s anti-Asian sentiments. Readers were calling on Teen Vogue staff to address the tweets, and under immense public pressure, they released the statement. I suppose they could have ignored their readers’ comments, but why would they? The concerns were well-founded, particularly amidst an alarming rise in anti-Asian hate crimes over the past year (and this was before the massacre later that week that would leave six Asian women dead). 

When it was announced that McCammond would be parting ways with Condé Nast, it surprised Teen Vogue staff — initially, it had seemed like Condé was going to weather the controversy and stick by their hire. 

The staff had never explicitly called for a resignation; they heard the concerns of their readers and responded in solidarity. Rather than a story about staffers revolting against new hires, the Teen Vogue conflict shows the power readers wield, especially as the industry has seen a noticeable shift towards considering reader engagement. The New York Times is encouraging its readers to join communities under the paper’s brand, created a reader center, and has taken to encouraging readers to submit story ideas or feedback. “We want to hear from you!” the newsroom exclaims. In 2019, uproar among readers — and an avalanche of subscription cancelations — over a Times headline led to a re-write and an explanation from the newsroom.

The rebirth of Teen Vogue as an explicitly political, progressive outlet was attributed to its readership, who then-editor Elaine Welteroth in 2017 described as “woke” and “activists”; cover star Tavi Gevinson at the time pointed to an “accountability culture” on the internet that made the relationship between Teen Vogue and its readership closer and more transparent. Making reader-driven decisions is not uncommon or unprecedented, and in an age where subscription revenue and a devoted audience are essential, it makes sense. Maintaining a devoted subscriber base also means listening to readers when they feel betrayed or hurt, which is exactly what the staff of Teen Vogue was doing. Condé leadership, meanwhile, did not see fit even to seek the feedback of its staff throughout the hiring process of their new leader.

WILL FACEBOOK’S DEAL WITH AUSTRALIA PROMPT MORE REGULATION?

When Facebook in February struck a deal with the Australian government to pay local publishers for their news content and end a lengthy standoff over the scope of tech regulation, there were some concessions. The law initially proposed by the Australian government was unsparing — it would have forced Google and Facebook to pay publishers for news content shared on their platforms or be subjected to hefty fines, and abide by terms set by a government panel, if they weren’t able to strike deals with the publishers themselves. But Facebook doesn’t like being bullied (or, you know, regulated in any way) and thus banned news from being shared on the app in the country in protest. 

In response, Australia made some allowances. Now, the law may not even apply to Facebook if it manages to strike enough deals with individual publishers. Google quickly struck a deal with News Corp. in February to avoid the law. And now Facebook has moved forward with striking deals independent of any governmental oversight: The tech company recently struck a three-year deal with News Corp. in Australia similar to that of Google, agreeing to pay the publisher to use its content. While it’s a victory for Australia’s attempts to rein in big tech and return some money to news publishers, it’s also a case study in the power Facebook wields. 

What happened in Australia is the beginning of a global effort to challenge Facebook’s grip on the news industry, which has seen the tech giant dominate the digital ad market at the expense of publishers that have depended on ad revenue (those publishers, meanwhile, had catered to Facebook’s algorithm only to see revenue fall). In Europe, publishers are calling for a law similar to the Australian legislation that would force tech platforms to pay for news content; Microsoft has agreed to join publishers in lobbying for such a policy. In some European countries and in Canada, lawmakers have been in conversation with their counterparts in Australia about the possibility of implementing similar policies. 

But could a policy forcing tech platforms to pay publishers take hold in the United States? The federal government has made some effort to regulate Google and Facebook, at least; the tech giants are currently the recipients of two antitrust lawsuits. The publisher of USA Today told the Wall Street Journal that the outcome in Australia seems to reveal a willingness by Facebook to pay for news content — but it wouldn’t have gotten there without regulatory pressure. 

STUDY HALL STYLE GUIDE DEBATE

Is it “cheques” or “checks”? Canadian icon Sandra Oh jumped into the debate. Sound off in the comments.

EVERYTHING ELSE

— The New York Times gave up trying to moderate its Cooking Community Facebook Group, announcing on Tuesday that it was stepping back from the private group after selecting moderators to manage its 77,000 members. NYT media columnist Ben Smith reported that there was no crisis that sparked the departure, but rather the paper decided that the time its staff members were spending moderating the group would be better spent working for the Times. As with most online groups with tens of thousands of members, it had devolved into chaos a few times. BuzzFeed provided a rundown of some of the biggest controversies in the group, which included the removal of a political post (sparking a discussion on the political nature of food) and arguments over the use of MSG and anti-Asian sentiment. 

— Vice UK revenues in 2019 were up 50% from the previous year to nearly $222 million, driven mostly by film producer Pulse Films, which Vice UK acquired a majority stake in four years ago. Pivot to video!

— Speaking of the British Isles, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found many UK-based influencers are not clearly labeling content paid for by brands as ads, and the authority is threatening to name and shame influencers who aren’t complying with the rules.

— After laying off 47 HuffPost staffers, BuzzFeed founder Jonah Peretti was grilled by remaining staffers, who spoke of “in-the-gutter” morale, the challenge of producing content with a large chunk of the newsroom now gone, and diversity concerns. 12% of union members who were laid off were Black, though Black journalists make up 6.8% of the union. When asked, Peretti committed to hiring more Black and brown journalists, even before profitability is reached for HuffPost.

— The Daily Telegraph wants to link some elements of journalists’ pay to how many subscriptions their stories drive and how many clicks they get, which is obviously a horrible idea, so the staff is understandably furious. “I’d call the mood mutinous,” said one staffer, who noted that well-known journalists and those writing about popular topics like the royal family will get more clicks than those writing about more “boring” topics.