Digest 03/07/2022

Who Is The Drift For?, How Did GMG Union Win?, Is News Worth Looking At?, and more.

HOW THE GMG UNION WON

On Tuesday, February 28, the contract for nearly 100 workers unionized at the six publications formerly under the Gizmodo Media Group umbrella expired; by Wednesday March 1, they were striking. The Gizmodo Media Group Union claims that Great Hill Partners — the private equity company that bought Jezebel, The Root, Lifehacker, Kotaku, Jalopnik and Gizmodo and turned them into G/O Media in 2019 — has been stalling negotiations for a new contract and the changes the employees would like to see made to it. 

The GMG union was asking for new salary minimums, parental leave, trans-inclusive healthcare, new diversity KPIs and more. The union voted on a strike with 100% consensus among the 93% of members voting, agreeing to a work stoppage and asking readers to stop reading the six sites in question as they picketed and supported themselves via the union’s strike fund. In an email to staff obtained by Poynter, G/O Media CEO Jim Spanfeller wrote he was “disappointed” and expressed that GMG Union should be amenable to the terms that were accepted by the Onion Union a year ago: “We are struggling to understand why terms agreed to by half the editorial union members last year are not acceptable to the other half now. Unfortunately, that puts G/O Media in an untenable position with regard to these current negotiations.”

The fight for a fair contract for GMG Union is about more than the G/O employees themselves, says WGAE council member Sara David in an interview with Study Hall. “They were the first ever digital media union — that kind of ignited the entire digital media union movement in the labor, the community at large. But then in the past couple of years, you’ve just seen a huge chasm in contract wins in GMG versus all the other digital media shops. …there’s like a three year gap between what the rest of us have won and what GMG has won. And the only difference there is because they were bought by private equity bosses.”

G/O Media’s management and the upper leadership at Great Hill Partners have been roundly criticized for their management of the former Gawker properties since they bought them out: G/O’s edict that Deadspin should “stick to sports” and walk away from the lauded cultural criticism they had become known for became the catalyst for Defector Media; specifically Jim Spanfeller’s staffing decisions have been named as the cause of the newsroom problems at The Root and Jezebel. 

So far, the backlash doesn’t seem to have motivated Great Hill Partners to rethink anything — David speculates that while many media CEOs take public perception seriously, private equity firms like GHP don’t: “G/O has been immune from that because none of their private equity bosses care …I think Jim Spanfeller also kind of revels in it.” (David also confirmed rumors that Spanfeller personally sent doughnuts to the GMG picket line, in what some members suspect is a Succession reference implying he is, in this scenario, an all-seeing, omnipotent Logan Roy.) 

GMG staffers have been locked out of their Slack accounts, email, and services like Chartbeat that would allow them to confirm the impact that their strike is having on G/O’s traffic and engagement. However, many have noted that G/O has begun running content from its international sites, uninvolved in the strike, on its US platform — for instance, republishing content from Kotaku Australia on Kotaku US (and closing comments to avoid mention of the strike). (G/O Media did not respond to requests for comment related to this story.)  – Rachel Kincaid

Read the rest:

GMG Union Workers Score a Victory Over Great Hill Partners in the First Open-Ended Digital Media Strike

---

SOCIAL MEDIA IS BREAKING THROUGH RUSSIA’S MISINFORMATION WAR

It only takes an instant for everything to change and, for journalists situated in Ukraine and Russia, that moment came before sunrise on February 24. It was then that Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke from behind a desk in Moscow and announced that the military presence he had been steadily building up around Ukraine for months would finally take action – pressing into the country’s borders in a “special military operation.” In the 11 days since that televised address, Russia has launched a bloody war against Ukraine that has created a refugee crisis impacting over 1.7 million people. Beyond being the largest ground war in Europe since World War II, it has also caused a seismic change in how – and where — news about what’s happening on the ground is being disseminated. 

International journalists on the ground in Kyiv have traded their offices for bomb shelters under a hotel whose walls shake from nearby explosions, while in Russia, laws have been pushed through that criminalize the spread of “false information” about the military, which is now punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Russian organizations that had been the final bastion of free press like Echo of Moscow and TV Rain have been shuttered overnight, and international outlets like the BBC have resorted to broadcasting news bulletins on WWII-era shortwave radio because their websites have been blocked by the Russian government. For Ukrainian journalists like those at the Kyiv Independent, they’ve had to put aside the trauma of watching their homeland be attacked to focus on reporting the news so that the world can see the truth of what’s happening. 

Even before the invasion began, the way that the world takes in information had been drastically shifting. Traditional news outlets have fought for years to compete with clips spread like wildfire on social media. The result of that tension is now more visible than ever; we are in the midst of the world’s “first TikTok war,” as Kyle Chayka discussed in a column for The New Yorker. Videos of bombs striking apartment buildings in Ukraine exist next to choreographed dances and men in gecko costumes giving free therapy. Despite misinformation being as rampant as ever and free press at traditional news outlets facing a tight grip of censorship, the war has also provided hope. Despite the imperfections and dangers, social media has shown once again that it is vital for documenting the realities of war. 

To help journalists on the ground in Ukraine who are risking their lives to document the war, we encourage you to donate to the Kyiv Independent’s fundraiser. – Chris Erik Thomas

---

WHAT’S THE POINT?

The media provides a constant deluge of information that we are taught to feel is important. Social media gets a lot of blame for increasing the deluge, opening the spigot so wide that we all drown—feel overwhelmed, under water, unable to stay afloat with the latest. But there’s not much unique about social except its speed. The Times or Post or anywhere else will provide you with an equally depressing amount of facts and figures and opinions. And so it makes sense, especially as tragedies like global warming-related fires and wars occur with increased frequency, we feel overwhelmed. And to counter this, there are Instagram influencers and mental health TikTokers telling you to take a break, to turn off the spigot, to unplug. It’s okay to stop caring <3, lol.

I have vacillated between these two extremes — constantly glued to my phone, or else constantly “unplugged,” giving no cares about the world’s news. And I have come to the decision that both of these modalities of consumption are wrong. We should not be asking the question, “how much is too much information” but instead, “what is the right information to be absorbing?” And once we ask that question, we can find ways to read, to pay attention, that actually change things, whether ourselves or our communities or the world. 

The problem is, the vast majority of media (and that includes social media) presents the world without context or actionable content — you see wildfires, you see Ukraine, you see all sorts of terrible things, and think, “this is terrible.” And then there is nothing after, so you feel bad. And you feel useless. And you shut down. The cycle continues. 

I do not have the full answer as to how, but we must begin to break this cycle by being more intentional with what we consume online. Before engaging with any story, before scrolling through Twitter, I have begun to ask myself, “what do I hope to get out of this?” Is there a donation I can make on the other end of the learning curve? Is there an actionable step to take? Will reading this story make me change, make me see the world differently, help me make other people see the world differently? And if the answer is “no,” then I try not to engage.

Which means I read a lot less coverage about current events than I used to, and a lot more analyses, I try to tweet less (and often fail), I definitely have fewer arguments on Twitter (because what the fuck is the point of that?) and try to have more conversations with friends via text and DM. I try, in other words, to be a conscious consumer of content. 

This is not a systemic solution. The media is in many ways designed to make us feel like everything is inactionable, to make us feel powerless and hopeless (haven’t you read Chomsky?!). But that doesn’t mean we have no agency. By drawing a line in the sand, saying that you will no longer allow yourself to become completely overwhelmed to the point of needing a social media soothsayer to tell you it’s okay to take a break, you help change your orientation to the world—the paralysis fades, and you begin to ask yourself, “what can I do now?” And that, in these overwhelming times, is a very important question. – P.E. Moskowitz

---

BOOKS AND HATS 

After nearly a decade working in the publishing industry, I find the idea of intellectualism, specifically that a publishing venture could be a hot spot for a meeting of the minds, to be laughable. The recent New York Times feature article about the Harvard-fed magazine The Drift assured me my cackling was yet again well placed. 

Skipping over the fact that once I saw a contract from The Drift in which the writer, for a measly $400, would hand over 50 percent of royalties they accrued if their work was republished, I paused during my skim of the article when I alighted on this gem: “People also snapped up Drift caps, signed up for Drift subscriptions and bought hundreds of copies of the print issue, which was filled with essays that challenged views generally accepted by liberals.” Luckily, my highly trained, racially aware eyeballs were able to correct “challenged” to “regurgitate” and “liberals” to “white people” — because how else would such a humble accomplishment make it into print unless the arch-conservative paper of opinion decided to lush about a primarily white editorial project and its merchandise. Per the subscriptions and hats meriting the interest of the Times, it’s not like challenging liberals is difficult or remotely interesting. 

This and a number of other details sprinkled throughout the article (“Tevas and bike helmets,” something about Henry James and a party), mayonnaise so potently that it makes “Case Sensitive: Why We Shouldn’t Capitalize ‘Black,” one of the two essays the article’s author, Alex Vadukul, offers to evince his claims, particularly specious. Forget asking why a literary magazine with only one Black editor on its masthead would believe itself adequately positioned to deliver such a critique of Black identity and instead ask the more necessary questions: “Who is the audience of the essay’s critique?” White readers. “Why does the Times feel it is necessary to highlight such a perspective?” White readers. “Why is the Times fawning over writing in which a Black author gives credence to a debate about racial identity that exists less for Black people than legacy publications themselves?” White readers. Let me emphasize how extraordinarily uncontroversial it is among Black people to use Black and black interchangeably. Too, how little such a debate matters while Black communities regularly confront extrajudicial killings, economic disenfranchisement, and targeted disinformation campaigns. But hats off to Nicholas Whittaker, author of “Case Sensitive,” and The Drift’s editors for swinging at windmills, I guess.

But let’s keep it collegiate: The Drift is the preeminent magazine for Ivy-educated whites who worship reading as an activity best done at the expense of marginalized people. Because I consider whiteness a class position, not a race — and I encourage you to adopt this view as well — I maintain The Drift’s masthead is exclusively white (condolences to sole Black editor Lake Micah). And I cannot fathom a reason why The Drift thought publishing the “Case Sensitive” was useful to anyone except white conservatives who struggle to parse the flexible and many uses of racial identity. Unless, that is, The Drift is run by white conservatives operating under the presumption that reading books somehow makes them smarter, more ethical, or even more interesting than the average worker whose livelihood does not afford them time to read such stultified texts as Black Marxism. It takes a certain kind of person to forget that life is not a literary magazine, and that person is typically college-educated, under 30, and the recipient of intergenerational wealth — at least in my opinion.  

In short, The Drift is indistinguishable from the “media hivemind” its founders Rebecca Panovka and Kiara Barrow claim to have circumvented. The magazine’s appearance in the Times is proof that legacy media is a wealth and racial tokenization party where the barrier for entry is networking capacity, not writerly talent. Personally, I think you’re better off giving your money to n+1, where the vibes are noticeably less bourgeois (lol). But then again why trust me, the person naive enough to glimpse a Times and expect to see something inspiring. – Evan Kleekamp 

---

EVERYTHING ELSE

— Nieman Lab has done the math and unfortunately a new study finds “journalists leave a bad impression with the public when they call themselves ‘storytellers.'”

— Facebook Meta will stop recommending Russian state media content to its users. Russian government offices are reportedly blocking access to independent media in the country in reaction to reporting on the war they view as unfavorable. Relatedly, Echo of Moscow, the oldest radio station in Russia, has been liquidated. Russian-backed outlet RT America will cease operations and lay off its staff in New York, Miami, Los Angeles, and DC. BBC News operations in Russia have been paused “until we assess impact of new laws which outlaw independent journalism.” Ukrainian camera operator Yevhenii Sakun has been reported killed on March 1 during shelling of a television tower in Kyiv.

— The Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association has released a statement on the pervasive preoccupation on the part of many pundits with expressing how unconscionable the violence in Ukraine is given the “civilized” and “European” nature of its citizens. “AMEJA condemns and categorically rejects orientalist and racist implications that any population or country is “uncivilized” or bears economic factors that make it worthy of conflict. This type of commentary reflects the pervasive mentality in Western journalism of normalizing tragedy in parts of the world such as the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. It dehumanizes and renders their experience with war as somehow normal and expected.”

— An investigation from MIT Technology Review confirms that Minneapolis’ controversial Operation Safety Net closely surveilled journalists (as well as civilian protesters) in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder in 2020, using Clearview AI technology among other surveillance tools to “scour social media, track cell phones, and amass detailed images of people’s faces” with public funds.

— Who and what is Canela Media? Forbes reports the “New York-based digital media technology company” just raised $32 million; some have expressed surprise on social media, saying they’ve never heard of the platform.