Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
And here's a grim article about the effects in Alaska of cutting​
funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/us/politics/public-broadcast-cuts.html?unlo
cked_article_code=1.hE8.G7xQ.9T04Cmr0Znse&smid=url-share
  

    

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution will go all-digital at the end of​
the year. 

"For the past three years, the AJC has worked to transform the​
newspaper, which traces its origins back 157 years, into a modern​
media company, investing millions in new reporting capabilities and​
technology. That strategy has centered on an ambitious goal to reach​
500,000 paid digital subscribers."

https://www.ajc.com/business/2025/08/ajc-to-move-to-fully-digital-publication-
phase-out-print-dec-31/
  

    
I see less and less point to print newspapers. We still subscribe to​
our local daily (and the Sunday Times), but every time they raise​
the rates or the carrier forgets to deliver, I have to wonder,
"why"?
  

    
These move by newspapers to all-digital are probably good for​
forests (even tree plantations absorb some carbon from the​
atmosphere), and make sense for the business.

It's no longer a strain to imagine the US going the way of China in​
terms of internet surveillance and access, though. So even aside​
from nostalgia or preference for reading the news on paper, this​
makes me uneasy.
  

    

Before this year, I would have largely agreed with you, Ari.
  

    
I agree, but I also think that ship has sailed - we'll need to fight​
surveillance overtly. Somewhat depressing to realize no progress​
will be likely made to change things over the next few years.
  

    
There is still something uniquely satisfying about opening a full​
sheet newspaper to scan all the various stories.  We do get the​
Sunday Santa Rosa Press Democrat, but alas we canceled because it is​
too expensive.

I have to go with books for reading print on a page, which I do​
every night before retiring.  But as we all know, reading with​
reflected light (paper and kindle) is quite different than reading​
with generated light (glowing screens on laptops, monitors pads and​
phones).
  

    

Despite many grim predictions to the contrary in the Aughts, print​
books seem to be doing great! I don't keep up with book industry​
news, but can say anecdotally that there are now three or four​
excellent independent small bookstores within a 20-minute walk of my​
building in Brooklyn. One of them is just blocks away.

When I moved here in 2001, the only nearby bookstore was the Barnes​
& Noble about 25-30 minute walk away (depending on walking speed;​
and just 10 minutes by subway). The first independent bookstore was​
a 40-minute walk.
  

    

Soo much news about news in the past week, and mostly very​
"concerning," to use a favorite word of the remaining big​
newspapers.

Before getting into that, I want to share a quote from an essay by​
Filipe de la Hoz in Flaming Hydra. He's teaches at the NYU j-school,​
and is also a civic reporter for a local community news site called​
Epicenter (itself a really interesting story.

In this portion of his essay (and please read the whole thing), he​
explains why legacy media remain so crucial to reporting the news:



"Say what you will about the New York Times, and I certainly have a​
lot of problems with it, few other papers have the bandwidth and​
resources, for example, to painstakingly report out the story of a​
botched U.S. Navy Seal incursion into North Korea that ended with​
special forces gunning down a boatful of civilians and sinking their​
bodies into the ocean. Though it is helpful to be able to dedicate​
reporters to protracted investigations that may or may not pan out,​
that’s just the beginning. 

"To do this type of work effectively, publications also need​
security teams, cybersecurity tools, the ability and willingness to​
defend against legal threats, attempted boycotts, and so on. This is​
only really possible at scale, and so at the risk of pissing off​
some of my dear co-writers here, I think journalism needs something​
like the big legacy outlets in addition to our smaller projects​
(which can also act as a bit of a check on the bigger outlets, as​
our Jonathan Katz did in March, when he scooped everyone on the​
story of Sen. Katie Britt misrepresenting the story of a trafficking​
survivor in her State of the Union response)."

https://flaminghydra.com/tomorrows-journalists/
  

    

Whups, actual journalism work intervenes. More soon.
  

    
I think most ecosystems rely on a complex weave of big and little​
systems. There is a lot of thinking as though only the big​
ecosystems matter - the Walmarts, the NY Times, etc. And, they do​
for the reasons you state, Emily (at least in the case of the NY​
Times). But, having smaller, more nimble organizations, or simply​
smaller places trying different ideas, is also vital. 

And, yet, jumping back up a few replies, I treasure the small,​
independent bookstores in ways that I don't treasure their mega​
cousins. On the very rare occasion I order a book from Amazon, it​
feels like a failure to me. My local independent can order just​
about anything (other than Amazon imprints) for me. I do miss the​
fun of huge B&N stores, but by the time they were disappearing from​
the ecosystem, they didn't actually seem to hold a large variety of​
books - just a wide variety of book-related stuff and some books.
  

    
In a gut-wrenching capitulation to the Trump administration, CBS​
News last week announced that its ombudsman (having one was a​
condition of approval for the Paramount-Warner Bros merger) will be​
a longtime, pro-MAGA conservative policy wonk and operative, who​
heads a conservative think tank that has long had it in for the​
so-called "liberal media". 

There is also talk that Bari Weiss, who is far from an even-handed​
information broker, will become news director. 

It's going to feel weird to write off CBS News, but that feeling​
proves I'm getting old. Millions of people probably barely know that​
CBS News exists, at this point.
  

    
Bari Weiss? oi.
  

    
Hi all. Been a bit ill so fell behind on posting about the state of​
the news. 

This morning I'm reading a new piece by David Kurtz in Talking​
Points Memo: "Trump's Retribution Requires a New Way of Covering​
Bogus Criminal Cases."

https://morningmemo.talkingpointsmemo.com/p/trumps-retribution-requires-a-new?
r=2690ey

(The link is via The Daily Blast podcast - I think it's a gift-type​
link.)

Kurtz's key point is that reporters can't cover this Comey​
indictment in the way federal cases have been covered ever since the​
Watergate-era. I'll let him explain since he does it so well:

"The key thing to remember is that we’re already well beyond the​
event horizon in the corruption of the Justice Department. If​
federal judges, having dispensed with the presumption of regularity​
in the functioning of the government, no longer give the Justice​
Department the benefit of the doubt in court, then we shouldn’t​
either.

"The implications of that shift are enormous, but too many editors​
and producers are not fully grappling with them yet.

...

"The incremental drip-by-drip news coverage of criminal cases,​
especially in public corruption cases — a highly competitive news​
environment that rewards the best access and quickest trigger​
fingers — now does a public disservice. Continuing to cover bogus​
prosecutions in the traditional ways gives a veneer of legitimacy to​
what should be framed instead as illegitimate retribution, abuse of​
power, and public corruption in its own right."



It's dismaying to me that a decade into Trump's rise to power in the​
US, major news outlets (including MSNBC's field reporters, as​
opposed to its commentators) and a good many of the next-biggest​
tier of outlets, are still ineffectively reporting on how he - writ​
large to include everyone involved - are using the regulatory, legal​
and administrative systems in such bad faith.

A few weeks ago (an eternity), I helped write a story on the​
response/debunking, by 85 scientists and other experts, to the​
Energy Department's bogus "state of climate science" report. That​
report was created solely as cover, however thin (and it's nearly​
transparent), for rescinding the legal basis for regulating carbon​
pollution. 

What struck me as we prepared this story was how good it felt to​
simply call things by their real names:

- The five people who prepared the report have long histories as​
prominent climate deniers. 
- They are extreme outliers in the wide world of climate and​
environmental science. 
- The used several very common reality-denial debate tactics to try​
and prove their points. 
- The scientific proof — the lived-experience proof — that​
carbon emissions are air pollution is even stronger now than when it​
was established at the federal level nearly two decades ago.

We - I and my colleague Sharon - got to do this in plain terms​
because our story was for DeSmog.com, which has spent 20 years​
calling climate disinformation by its real name. 

This is starting to happen widely now in terms of public health and​
vaccine coverage, for obvious reasons, but in mcuh climate,​
environment and energy coverage it remains hit-or-miss.