Nieman Journalism Lab |
- What’s New in Digital Scholarship: Gendered sourcing on Twitter and the allure of following the crowd
- Students: Spend the summer working with Nieman Lab via the Google Journalism Fellowship
- The newsonomics of the November shuffle, from Forbes to Freedom and Couric to Stelter
| Posted: 27 Nov 2013 09:05 AM PST Editor’s note: There’s a lot of interesting academic research going on in digital media — but who has time to sift through all those journals and papers? Our friends at Journalist’s Resource, that’s who. JR is a project of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and they spend their time examining the new academic literature in media, social science, and other fields, summarizing the high points and giving you a point of entry. Roughly once a month, JR managing editor John Wihbey will sum up for us what’s new and fresh. In terms of empirical research that can inform media practice, it’s worth reviewing some important posts already published this month at the Lab. Among the works discussed: a Berkman Center for Internet & Society report on the technical limitations of how we measure online activity and a thoughtful warning about many forms of web-generated data we take for granted; an NPR Digital Services analysis of their own Local Stories Project’s social media data, making a case that “serious” stories are as shareable as “fun” ones; a deep dive into the cognitive science behind news engagement on social media from Sonya Song, Knight-Mozilla Fellow at The Boston Globe; a Foundation Center report highlighting the rise of philanthropic money in media generally and the sharp increases in mobile and applications/tools investments; and a Pew/Knight report examining the demographics of Twitter news consumers (the same survey data that was based on continues to yield new Pew analyses, including on news use across all social platforms). The academic journal world also produced some noteworthy articles this month, including: “News sourcing and gender on Twitter”: From Washington and Lee University, published in Journalism. By Claudette G. Artwick. The study analyzes 2,731 tweets from journalists (26 men, 25 women) at 51 different newspapers during 2011. The problems in this area are persistent and well-documented, and Artwick reviews the prior literature on gender imbalances in news stories. In her sample, she finds sources named in about 19 percent of tweets (507 sources quoted overall). Just 11 percent of those quoted were women, thus “women’s voices were relatively silent in the quotes on these reporters’ Twitter streams.” Further, at larger papers, “less than 8 percent of female reporters’ quotes featured women, and male reporters quoted no women at all.” Female reporters at larger news outlets quoted fewer women within the sample, compared to their counterparts at smaller newspapers. Through the use of “@” mentions, however, reporters were “engaging with a more diverse community”: Nearly four of every 10 “@” mentions were women. Artwick concludes: “Reshaping the old rules and hegemonic structures that dominate story content and push-through onto Twitter may be needed to make way for the diversity of voices that can better serve democracy.” “The Internet and American Political Campaigns”: From George Washington University, published in The Forum. By David Karpf. (Pre-print open version here.) Part of a growing cohort of academics pioneering the subfield of online politics, Karpf provides a short, useful summary of the state of research in this area. For journalists, the works cited page alone is a valuable who’s who — fill up that contact list for campaigns 2014 and 2016 — but the narrative also underscores some basic truths: The web has not changed many forms of participatory inequality; polarizing candidates frequently win the small donations race; the “culture of testing” and analytics are changing how campaigns allocate resources; liberals and conservatives typically use technology differently for campaigns. One striking insight: “We are potentially moving from swing states to swing individuals, employing savvy marketing professionals to attract these persuadables and mobilize these supporters with little semblance of the slow, messy deliberative practices enshrined in our democratic theories.” But definitive answers remain elusive on many other fronts. “There is still, frankly, a lot that we do not know,” Karpf writes. For more insights in this area, see Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s response, “Messaging, Micro-Targeting and New Media Technologies.” In related research, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen and Cristian Vaccari examine social media data relating to the 2010 U.S. congressional elections. Their study, “Do People ‘Like’ Politicians on Facebook? Not Really. Large-Scale Direct Candidate-to-Voter Online Communication as an Outlier Phenomenon,” published in the International Journal of Communication, furnishes some cautionary evidence about quality engagement with voters. “Social Recommendation, Source Credibility, and Recency: Effects of News Cues in a Social Bookmarking Website”: From Elon University, published in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. By Qian Xu. Xu looks at how different aspects of Digg (the old, pre-relaunch Digg) influenced perceptions of credibility related to media content. The study explores the consequences of the “bandwagon effect” — whereby attention to content frequently clustered around certain items — by performing an experiment on 146 undergraduates. It’s a small sample, but it underscores some important ideas. Variables included number of diggs, source credibility, and recency of content. The results are perhaps predictable: People not only tend to go with the crowd, but they tend to think the crowd must be wise in its judgment. “Social recommendation, in the form of the number of diggs, was found to have major influences on a variety of outcomes, such as attention and click likelihood toward the feed, evaluation of news credibility and newsworthiness, as well as news sharing behavioral intention,” Xu writes. But the big theoretical takeaway relates to how news organizations need to rethink their approach: “The determining role of social recommendation might present a big challenge for news organizations relying heavily on traditional editorial selection. Whether the news was published by a highly credible source might no longer matter in individuals’ selective exposure to news. Individuals may rely more on social means of information searching and filtering rather than resorting to experts for suggestions.” “The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web”: From the University of Amsterdam, published in New Media & Society. By Carolin Gerlitz and Anne Helmond. This think piece analyzes Facebook’s attempts to create a “more social experience of the Web” and, among other things, its use of like and share buttons that distribute engagement outside the platform and across the web. Gerlitz and Helmond explore “how the launch of social buttons has reintroduced the role of users in organising web content and the fabric of the web — and how the infrastructure of the Open Graph is turning user affects and engagement into both data and objects of exchange.” Their discussion looks at how subtle technical shifts are changing whole paradigms and conceptions of digital life and commerce. But the paper is not without some tough critiques, particularly given Facebook’s refusal to include a “Dislike” social button option or other ways of registering negative sentiment and data: “[T]he Like economy is facilitating a web of positive sentiment in which users are constantly prompted to like, enjoy, recommend and buy as opposed to discuss or critique — making all forms of engagement more comparable but also more sellable to webmasters, brands and advertisers. While Social Plugins allow materialising and measure positive affect, critique and discontent with external web content remain largely intensive and non-measurable.” However, as the scholars note, this is all growing more complicated: “The absence of negative affects has until the autumn of 2012 marked the limits of Facebook’s understanding of sociality. The introduction of new activity apps, however, has complicated the affective space of Facebook, allowing for differentiated and even negative activities in relation to web objects, such as to hate, disagree and criticise — while the action ‘dislike’ remains blocked.” Overall, the paper looks at precisely how Facebook’s general filtering of the web is being constructed and the implicit values embedded in the decisions of its developers. “Black Boxes as Capacities for and Constraints on Action: Electoral Politics, Journalism, and Devices of Representation”: From the College of Staten Island and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, published in Qualitative Sociology. By C.W. Anderson and Daniel Kreiss. This paper blends in-the-field ethnographic work with bleeding-edge academic theory. Anderson and Kreiss take as their case studies two experiences: One involves the making of voter maps for internal use within the Obama 2008 campaign; the other involves Philadelphia-based newsrooms and their difficult experiences with the quirks of content management systems. In the past, social scientists could look at major societal shifts through much more obvious and observable macro technological advances — the rise of assembly lines, cars, highways, suburbs, computers. Now, many of the important trends are micro. Thus, these researchers explore how Actor-Network Theory (ANT) might help us get a better sense of what’s really going on — how technologies are shaped by people, and shape what people do. This theory highlights how technology is itself an actor and helps shape knowledge and builds communities with common understandings. It requires research of the tech-human interaction at a granular level. At any rate, in both cases studied certain technological forms — the voter map and the news content system — grow up to embody assumptions about what is important and how information should be understood: Which people should be targeted, and which ignored? What stories should be told, and who should control that agenda? These questions are often decided in subtle ways by the technical organization of information. Anderson and Kreiss conclude that “to understand power and reform social institutions, and even uproot them, requires attention not just to theories of participation, deliberation, and the public sphere, but the socio-technical engineering of democratic publics and the cultural presuppositions that guide it.” “Digital Activism and Non-Violent Conflict”: From the Digital Activism Research Project (University of Washington.) By Frank Edwards, Philip N. Howard, and Mary Joyce. The researches look at hundreds of instances of digital activism over two decades, categorizing practices and outcomes. Their evidence dispels some myths: “Frequent news stories about cyberterrorists, cybercrime, and hackers make digital activism seem like a pretty dark art, whereas close comparative analysis of campaign strategies, successes, and failures reveals that persuasion features more highly than violence.” Yes, Facebook and Twitter are common tools, but in different regions of the world other social and communications technologies are also deployed frequently. E-petitions are most common in North America, while microblogging is most common in South America and Asia. Edwards, Howard, and Joyce add some nuance to debates in this area: “No single digital tool in this study had a clear relationship with campaign success. This is consistent with received wisdom. Experienced activists will tell you that using Facebook or Twitter or an e-petition will not guarantee success. Now there is data to demonstrate that using these tools does not even make success more likely, when that is the only factor being analyzed.” Finally, the evidence “challenges cyber-pessimist hypotheses about repressive governments becoming more savvy about digital activism, and thus better able to defeat digital campaigns. This study suggests that there is not a clear change in the rate of campaign success or failure between 2010 and 2012.” “Remote Shopping Advice: Enhancing In-Store Shopping with Social Technologies”: From Microsoft Research. By Meredith Ringel Morris, Kori Inkpen, and Gina Venolia. This useful paper that might be explored by journalists looking for the latest angle on holiday shopping. The study’s data were generated by a field experiment and survey of 200 shoppers, focusing on their experience with advice from networks while browsing for items. Shoppers took pictures and used text messages, Facebook and Mechanical Turk to get feedback about clothing choices. They not only found friends’ advice useful but also valued feedback from anonymous crowdsourcing. The findings “indicate that seeking input from remote people while shopping is a relatively commonplace occurrence, but that most people currently rely on simple voice or text-based interactions to accomplish this,” the researchers write. “Our experiment demonstrated that users found value in using richer media (photos) as well as using emerging social platforms (social networking sites and crowd labor markets) to meet these needs, and that such platforms’ performance characteristics (particularly Mechanical Turk) were generally suitable for such interactions. Based on these findings, we suspect that consumers would find value in a smartphone app designed specifically to support seeking remote shopping advice.” Morris, Inkpen and Venolia ultimately offer some thoughts about what the next generation of shopping advice systems might look like. (Although not mentioned, it also suggests a possible avenue for media looking to provide more direct, targeted value to consumers, and generate revenue, in an evolving social media ecosystem.) “The freelance translation machine: Algorithmic culture and the invisible industry”: From McGill University, published in New Media & Society. By Scott Kushner. A super-deep meditation on how language translation operates within Internet-enable marketplaces at sites such as ProZ.com (based in Syracuse, N.Y.), the study contemplates how the rise of algorithms and globalization are affecting our ideas about work and culture. French philosophy is invoked as Kushner takes a sweeping theoretical look at the future of labor: “The freelancers who become ProZ.com users can instrumentalize the interface even as it instrumentalizes them: by internalizing the logics of entrepreneurialism and learning to operate the ProZ.com interface, they ‘introduce economy’ (Foucault, 1991: 92) into their operations, increasing productivity to the benefit of the industry and extracting some degree of compensation. Those who produce quality translations, receive high ratings, develop relationships with outsourcers and come to attract new clients will easily justify next year’s US$129 membership fee.” In all this, we get a glimpse of the global labor future — and see how the human mind and the computer will be increasingly intertwined in the performance of tasks. Photo by Anna Creech used under a Creative Commons license. |
| Students: Spend the summer working with Nieman Lab via the Google Journalism Fellowship Posted: 27 Nov 2013 09:00 AM PST Hey students: Want to spend next summer working with Nieman Lab? I’m very happy to say that we will again be one of the host organizations for the Google Journalism Fellowships. Here’s Google’s description:
It’s a chance to come spend time in Cambridge working with us as we research and report on the future of news — writing stories, working on projects, and generally trying to learn more about where the news ecosystem is headed. Last summer, we were very happy to have Sarah Darville and Linda Kinstler here as our fellows. (Sarah’s now at Chalkbeat New York, née Gotham Schools; Linda’s at The New Republic. You can see the stories Sarah wrote for us here and Linda’s here.)
The way it works is that you pick one specific host organization to apply to — so if, say, investigative reporting was your main interest, you might pick CIR, IRE, or ProPublica. In your application, you can also choose to allow the seven other host organizations to consider at your application if your first choice doesn’t select you. (Some real talk, though: We get enough applications — over 2,000 last year between all the organizations! — that logistically, it’s unlikely that you’ll be considered by a host other than the one you select as your top choice. So pick well!) There’s a stipend: $8,000 for the 10 weeks (which starts June 9), plus a travel budget of $1,000. And note this eligibility requirement from Google: “[W]e are only accepting students based in the United States and eligible to work in the U.S., if your host organization is located in the U.S. (e.g. U.S. citizens, U.S. permanent residents, and individuals with a current U.S. student visa).” You can read an FAQ about the new program (including eligibility info), learn about all the host institutions, and apply. The application deadline is January 31. (One last nomenclature-related thing: Even though this uses the word “fellowship” in its title and is based at the Nieman Foundation, note that it’s quite different than our traditional Nieman Fellowships, which allow working journalists to come spend a year taking classes and working on a course of study at Harvard. This is an opportunity for a student to come work with Nieman Lab staff for the summer, reporting on the future of journalism. Apologies in advance to anyone confused by the terminology.) |
| The newsonomics of the November shuffle, from Forbes to Freedom and Couric to Stelter Posted: 27 Nov 2013 07:46 AM PST Ah, the pre-Thanksgiving bounty. Those of us who try to chronicle the business end of the news business have seen our plates overflowing lately. Not since the Bezos blitz of August have we seen so many announcements, shuffles, offers to sell, and big-name moves in a single month. These shuffles tell us lots about the evolution of both value and values going into 2014. Lots of media to pick apart: Wishbones, drumsticks, and carcasses to be cleaned, gravy to be separated. Let’s carve: The Forbeses, the Blodgets, and other digital builders may sense a top.As Forbes Media put itself on the block last week, it did so as a digital media company, not a magazine brand. Why aim at something like a 5x multiple of earnings — if you can even find a “magazine” buyer — when you might be able to get twice that amount selling on your digital cred. Lots of good digital numbers tossed around: 25 percent digital ad growth, 55 percent digital revenues overall. Not highlighted: The familiar print struggles, as ad revenue is down 7.5 percent to $165.7 million through September, with ad pages down a percent. Forbes, forsaking its traditional business roots, has been a poster child for how to digitize a legacy company. Take a look at its home page, and you see how it has floated far away from its Fortune and Bloomberg Businessweek competitors, populizing, optimizing, nativizing, and rightsizing its content creation. Inevitably, in such transitions, something’s gained — a doubling of unique visitors in three years — and something’s lost, in this case the upmarket nature of its old magazine audience. Despite its great digital growth, it’s still sub-scale compared to many of the companies it now competes more directly with — not to mention the truly big guns like Google, Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, Microsoft, and Twitter. So maybe the end of 2013 — with the Dow over 16,000 and the shine not yet wiped off of Forbes’ remake under CEO Mike Perlis — offers a great time to sell. Sell the story (digital audience and revenue growth, a leader in “Brand Voice” content marketing) and let the next guys deal with the next era. Elevation Partners, which bought in seven years ago and now controls a large minority stake of Forbes, probably won’t get its investment back out, but its calculation may be a good one for Thanksgiving movie viewing: As Good As It Gets. Similarly, I’d have to agree with Michael Wolff that Henry Blodget — the banned-for-life Wall Street trader turned publisher who recently told the FT’s tripe-eating Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson, “I mean, first of all, I feel like an absolute moron for missing the top [of the market]” back in the dot-com days — may sense the same thing. Whether or not he is yet shopping Business Insider for $100 million, as Wolff surmises, he’s built a Forbes Media-like digital company, adept at creating and replicating newsy content. BI recently got a new infusion of needed cash from investors, and Blodget immediately pooh-poohed Wolff’s advice to sell. Yet the construction of such efficient content sites has its limits, and Henry’s got to be driven by his previous market experience. These are businesses that have built value quickly on the explosive growth of pageviews. Though both Forbes and BI have branched out from display ads into events and other businesses, their fortunes lie greatly with ad monetization. As we’ll see below from Yahoo’s own ad math, that’s problematic for 2014-2015 growth. The problem for both companies: The companies who may be the only potential buyers — the Yahoos, AOLs, or Voxes — can calculate fairly exactly what the digital audiences of page-spinners like Forbes or BI are really worth with their own state-of-the-art ad stacks applied. Those calculations would likely lead to significantly less than the desired $400-500 million price tag of Forbes or a possible $100 million for BI. Will Alden be next? As Digital First Media improves its own balance sheet — putting up paywalls to goose circulation revenue, outsourcing printing, and centralizing national content creation — when will Alden Global Capital, the company’s prime driver, decide its time to cash out its investments? Like Elevation Partners, it won’t walk away a big winner — but walking sooner than later may be its best move. As Katie Couric comes to Yahoo, she should bring Sarah Palin.Let’s remember when Katie went viral — it was with her dance partner Sarah Palin, drawing millions of pageviews as a mesmerized electorate marveled at the candidate’s view of Russia. Couric will do an interview program for Yahoo, and it will be those interviews — separately judged and shared — that I think will bring the greatest value to Marissa Mayer’s new-look Yahoo. After all, appointment viewing is more about Walking Dead and Breaking Bad these days than the network news, or even Katie’s own disappointing talk show. As announced by Yahoo, Couric has been described as a new “global anchor.” For Yahoo, being number one in online news “viewership” just hasn’t (yet, at least) paid off sufficiently. Yahoo’s like the most popular kid in a high school class who nonetheless struggles to pull together all the right application elements to get into a really good college. We’ll have to wait and see how Mayer further defines the new company. The shorthand of being a “content origination” company doesn’t do much; besides, why would that description be useful given the eternal business struggles of all the companies that do originate content? Yahoo was down seven percent in display ad revenues in the last quarter, though the number of ads sold dropped only one percentage point. That’s the basic math that defines the mighty struggle of most companies other than Google and Facebook to grow digital revenue: Downward pricing pressures are overwhelming. Though a big name in the old world, Couric is just one more puzzle piece in the Rubik’s Cube — inevitably, there are many more dead-ends than successes — of re-imagining digital news programs. At Yahoo, it’s Megan Liberman, ex- of the Times, assembling the parts, part Bai, part Pogue, part Couric — just as her former employer goes to the Times Minute, with its new thrice-daily one-minute video news update and names a new managing editor for video, Bruce Headlam. Place Yahoo’s “re-imagining” of digital video news among many others, from The Wall Street Journal’s early video news moves to Newsy’s pioneering multi-source programming to Oslo-based VGTV’s audacious move beyond print to the boundary-breaking (news/social/talk show) HuffPost Live (“The newsonomics of leapfrog news video”). The experimentation will only grow, and be bolstered by more big names, in 2014. The reasons are clear: 45 percent of U.S. adults report watching digital news video, and video advertising continues to sell out — the only category of digital advertising that has more demand than supply. Yahoo doesn’t break out its video revenue, but we know that overall U.S. video advertising grew 24 percent in the first half of the year, to $1.3 billion. These video-forward moves are driven by demand-side economics. Brian Stelter’s profile could grow (or fade) as he enters CNN.Stelter has been the best bridge between the old business of TV and the new emerging business of video, with all its fuzzy-patterns transition. As the phenom, hired at age 21 by The New York Times, moves to CNN, he brings his unusually intelligent, perceptive, and deeply reported work with him. We have to wonder about the fit, though. He moved the Times measurably forward in the media/tech world in which it both excels and lags. Though it’s the announced plan, it’s hard to see him stepping into the dated media container of Howie Kurtz’s Reliable Sources show, old media doing old media, even though he’ll undoubtedly bring new edge to it. I like the idea of him doing a Morgan Spurlock-like show, one with attitude, authentic reporting, and a modern graphical sense — almost weblike on TV — of how to tell a story. The problem is that there are so many CNNs. For every stretch of defining intelligence from the Fareed Zakarias, there’s another of numbing, talk-down-to-me bleating out of The Situation Room, leading to such gaffes as Wolf Blitzer announcing the segment on the Kennedy Assassination: “I’m Wolf Blitzer, reporting from Washington. The assassination of President Kennedy begins right now.” As many of the non-TV-based giants, Yahoo and the Times among them, go deeper into video, the next remaking of CNN itself continues apace under Jeff Zucker. Everything from storytelling modes to business models are up in the air, as the reality of smartphone- and tablet-delivered video sinks in across the news industry. Aaron Kushner emerges with a small SoCal duopoly — and a deeper question about his contrarian strategy.Kushner’s Freedom Corp. wired its $27.2 million to A.H. Belo Corp. Thursday. It wasn’t that the acquisition of the Riverside Press-Enterprise took that long to close, only six weeks after the agreement was announced. What was unusual was the public commentary on the delays, as Belo put out releases both giving Freedom more time to complete the deal and to announce very clearly its alternatives and ability to extract a non-refundable million dollars if the deal went south. That’s just the public tip of discussion. Behind the scenes, people in the news industry — some rooting for the contrarian publisher who has smartly promoted a $10-12 million investment (“The newsonomics of Aaron Kushner’s virtuous circles”) in the Orange County Register’s staff and product; others deep doubters — are linking the delay in the Riverside buy to Kushner’s ability to stay the course in Orange County. Kushner has been quite clear in saying that his investment will take a good three to five years to pay off, rebuilding the readership and advertising base of a paper that had been drained by cutting and then bankruptcy. So the question: Does he really have the financial wherewithal, or access to it, to advance his strategy? Completing the cash deal seemed to be the holdup. “We have no inability to stay the course,” he told me, three days after the deal closed. “We’re on the offensive.” How well is that offensive going? Kushner says that the investment in the Register products and the rationalizing of reader pricing has led to a 16 percent increase in circulation revenue year over year. That number doesn’t significantly count the impact of a unique paywall put up in April. While those dollars may be good, an improvement on what was a substandard base, the Register is still, like its peers, down in advertising. Figure mid-single digits of down in print, and down in digital ads. One issue with latter: The Register’s hard paywall has caused a 40 percent loss in pageviews, traffic that Kushner says is beginning to come back. Those numbers tell you one thing: Even if successful, the Register’s approach will take years. That again raises the question of wherewithal. As the new year rolls in, we’ll see how much of the Register investment philosophy is — and can be — applied to the Press-Enterprise. While the Register sees the L.A. Times — and its pointed reporting on the Register’s Belo delay, and three lawsuits in which it is involved — as the sour grapes of a big competitor, the hint of question about the future of the Register will hang in the air for awhile. Southern California — which has the twin distinctions of being both the region having the most dailies with paywalls and with the most to have emerged from bankruptcy — remains ripe for a rollup, a cost-saving consolidation. When other SoCal properties — Digital First Media’s numerous MediaNews dailies and/or the Times itself, as it’s spun out or directly sold off by the Tribune Company — are put on the market, the acquisitive capacity of the new Freedom will arise, fairly or otherwise, as a question mark. Jay Rosen’s arrival at Pierre Omidyar’s “Newco” provides bedrock.It’s a good problem to have: What do you do with a possible fund of $250 million to build a new news company in 2014? That number, offered up by Pierre Omidyar as the reservoir of financial capacity for his new Glenn Greenwald+ news company, deservedly won headlines. While the site may not need to show profit any time soon, it needs to prove itself a credible news source — and that money can’t buy. So Jay Rosen’s decision to get aboard the new enterprise, actively advising it on navigating the editorial waters, is great news. I’ve known Jay for 20 years now, and you couldn’t ask for a clearer thinker on what journalism needs to do in the digital age. The business issues of establishing credibility for personal-branded journalism site are still profound, but Rosen offers a fundamental belief in the power of honest, fact-based journalism to do good. His joining of Omidyar parallels former academic Clark Gilbert’s move from Harvard to Salt Lake City, as he’s driven one new model after another, many based on his teachings over the years, at Deseret News. Everyone into the swim. Photo by Chris Hsia used under a Creative Commons license. |
In an effort to help develop the next crop of reporters working to keep the world informed, educated and entertained, we have created the Google Journalism Fellowship. As a company dedicated to making the world's information easily accessible, Google recognizes that behind many blue links is a journalist and that quality journalism is a key ingredient of a vibrant and functioning society.
We’re one of 10 journalism institutions that will be hosting Google Journalism Fellows this year, up from eight last year. The other nine are pretty great, too: the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Investigative Reporters & Editors, Pew Research Center's Journalism Project, Poynter, PRI.org, ProPublica, the Sunlight Foundation, and The Texas Tribune.| You are subscribed to email updates from Nieman Journalism Lab To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |