[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
Baltimore’s Media Nightmare and the Billionairification of News Justine Barron ([link removed])


David D. Smith, leading stockholder of Sinclair, Inc., announced on January 15 that he was purchasing what is left of the Baltimore Sun, once regarded as the crown jewel of the Maryland city's media (AP, 1/15/24 ([link removed]) ).

Sinclair is a multi-billion dollar Fortune 500 company and one of the largest owners of television stations in the country. The company has been criticized for its conservative and not always accurate TV news coverage (Salon, 7/21/17 ([link removed]) ; New Yorker, 10/15/18 ([link removed]) ). In 2018, the company compelled local TV news anchors around the country to read on air the same copy parroting President Donald Trump’s claims about “fake news” (Deadspin, 3/31/18 ([link removed]) ).

The New York Times (1/20/24 ([link removed]) ) reported that many fear David Smith "will impose his political interests on the organization as a final coda to a once proud newspaper that has been facing a long decline."

The decline of the Sun has been happening for years before Smith’s purchase. The outlet was purchased in 2021 by Alden Capital Group, a hedge fund, which cut newsroom capacity ([link removed]) and output. The Sun’s previous owner, Tribune (formerly Tronc), had already been furloughing staff ([link removed]) and cutting pay before Alden’s takeover.

Sinclair is a national media giant, owning 294 stations ([link removed]) across the country, but it is also headquartered just outside of Baltimore. Smith said he purchased the Sun with his own funding, independent of Sinclair. The Sun (1/15/24 ([link removed]) ) advertised the purchase as “the first time in nearly four decades that the Sun will be in the hands of a local owner ([link removed]) .”

Numerous media outlets around the country have expressed concern about Smith’s purchase, with a focus on his right-wing political leanings and his outspoken disdain ([link removed]) for print media (e.g., New Republic, 1/17/24 ([link removed]) ; New York Times, 1/20/24 ([link removed]) ).

“A local buyer taking over a struggling newspaper in the 21st century is normally cause for some celebration,” the AP (1/16/24 ([link removed]) ) commented. “But the Baltimore Sun’s newly announced owner has a very specific political background, and some are concerned about what the 187-year-old publication could become.”

Yet the groundwork for Smith’s takeover of the Sun was laid by many of the same news outlets expressing concern about it. Media have created an environment that not only enables takeovers of newspapers by billionaires, but frequently celebrates such acquisitions as important for democracy.


** What are billionaires really buying?
------------------------------------------------------------
CNN: Marc Benioff bought Time magazine to help address a 'crisis of trust'

CNN (12/30/19 ([link removed]) ) seemed to place a lot of trust in tech billionaire Marc Benioff's profession of good intentions.

Much of the concern around Smith’s purchase of the Baltimore Sun has to do with his family’s legacy of influencing the news in the region. Over the last 20 years, Smith and his family have become increasingly powerful in Baltimore’s political, corporate and media landscape, and they have used their local media holdings to promote their agendas (Baltimore Sun, 1/18/24 ([link removed]) ). The Sun has a history of reporting critically on Sinclair (9/1/22 ([link removed]) , 6/27/23 ([link removed]) , 8/2/23 ([link removed]) ), a threat that
has likely been neutralized by this purchase.

Observers are right to be skeptical of Smith's promise that he is buying the Baltimore Sun out of an “absolute responsibility to serve the public interest” (AP, 1/16/24 ([link removed]) ). But many of the same news outlets concerned about Smith’s influence over a longstanding daily newspaper have shown little concern about the influence of billionaire news owners ([link removed]) in general—or they have shown selective concern.

When Amazon founder Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post in 2013 (Extra!, 3/14 ([link removed]) ), he assured the public that he was only interested in its potential profitability and that the Post would continue to operate as an independent entity. There wasn’t widespread panic.

Some of the Post’s coverage has seemed to go out of its way to protect the explicit interests of Bezos and the billionaire class (CJR, 9/27/22 ([link removed]) ). As FAIR (10/11/18 ([link removed]) , 11/21/18 ([link removed]) ) reported, the Post’s coverage of the 2018 Maryland gubernatorial campaign was shockingly biased in favor of Republican Larry Hogan and against Democrat Ben Jealous, a Bernie Sanders supporter. Hogan was negotiating to bring an Amazon headquarters to Maryland, and Jealous had raised questions about the deal.

With some exceptions, like Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter (New York Times, 10/5/22 ([link removed]) ; Newsweek, 10/28/22 ([link removed]) ; MSNBC, 11/21/22 ([link removed]) ), corporate media have covered billionaire takeovers of media outlets in a mostly neutral or positive light, at times portraying the wealthy owners as if they are saving a dying but essential industry out of the goodness of their hearts. That was the dominant tone of the coverage of Marc Benioff’s purchase of Time magazine (CNN, 12/30/19 ([link removed]) ) and John H. Henry’s purchase of the Boston Globe (Reuters, 8/3/13 ([link removed]) ), among others.

When billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong purchased the LA Times, the New York Times (2/7/18 ([link removed]) ) described him as rescuing the outlet from corporate media hell and offering a “welcome alternative” to Tronc. Its article began with a staffer “popp[ing] a bottle of champagne.” Soon-Shiong had previously been Tronc’s vice chair.


** To 'save the news industry'
------------------------------------------------------------
NYT: Billionaires Wanted to Save the News Industry. They’re Losing a Fortune.

The "fortunes" the New York Times (1/18/24 ([link removed] Bezos%2C the founder of,in 2018 for $500 million.) ) describes billionaires losing on their media projects range from 0.7% to 0.05% of their net worth per year.

The New York Times (1/18/24 ([link removed] Bezos%2C the founder of,in 2018 for $500 million.) ) recently reported that the media outlets bought by billionaires have been largely failing financially—that the billionaires have failed to “save the news industry,” as if that were truly their goal. The Times didn’t consider that billionaires earn other dividends from controlling public discourse, for one.

The national media did exhibit more concern when billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a major casino owner (now deceased), bought the Las Vegas Review-Journal in 2015. News stories highlighted his ties to the Republican Party, and some speculated that he would use the purchase to influence the 2016 presidential election (Guardian, 12/17/15 ([link removed]) ; NPR, 12/17/15 ([link removed]) ; Atlantic, 12/17/15 ([link removed]) ).

There was far less concern over what it means, in general, for a casino magnate to own the news in Las Vegas (Common Dreams, 12/22/15 ([link removed]) ). Would Adelson have faced as much pushback if he weren’t a Republican?

It seems that “liberal” establishment media are concerned about some wealthy corporate owners—the faceless hedge funds and those with far-right leanings—but not the problem of billionaire or corporate ownership in general and its corrosive effects on a free press. But it is the very unchecked environment of corporate news ownership that has enabled the wealthy far-right takeover of so much of it.

None of the billionaires buying up newspapers have offered clear policies and practices ensuring that they won’t be able to influence coverage, only tepid assurances. FCC or other regulations that might ensure news media are free from such conflicts of interest would require sustained public attention--and that would entail corporate media challenging the interests of their own owners.


** Baltimore and the Smith family
------------------------------------------------------------
Afro: Local Fox Affiliate Falsely Reports Tawanda Jones Endorsed Killing Cops at DC Protest

Afro (12/23/14 ([link removed]) ): Sinclair's WBFF reported that "Baltimore activist Tawanda Jones had led a crowd in chanting 'we won’t stop, we can’t stop, so kill a cop'...when she was actually chanting 'we won’t stop, we can’t stop, ‘til killer cops, are in cell blocks.'"

Concerns about the Baltimore Sun becoming a blatant tool of the far right are warranted. Within Baltimore, WBFF-Fox 45’s racist and politicized coverage is notorious. Regular coverage fosters fear around Baltimore youth, progressive causes and public schools (e.g., 7/24/22 ([link removed]) , 1/25/24 ([link removed]) ). In 2014, Fox 45 was caught doctoring footage of noted local activist Tawanda Jones to make it seem like she was saying “kill a cop” during a protest, when she was chanting about “killer cops” (Afro, 12/23/14 ([link removed]) ).

Fox 45 has shown clear favoritism to local politicians. For years, it supported a scandal-ridden ([link removed]) candidate, Thiru Vignarajah, in his repeated failed bids for state’s attorney and mayor. Smith family members were prominent donors ([link removed]) to his campaigns, and Fox 45 has hosted him in the studio far more than other candidates.

This year, the Smith family has shifted its financial support and airtime to candidate Sheila Dixon, who was previously Baltimore’s mayor but resigned in 2010 after pleading guilty ([link removed]) to perjury and embezzlement. Smith’s partner in his deal to buy the Sun, conservative Sinclair commentator Armstrong Williams ([link removed]) , hosted ([link removed]) a one-hour, flattering interview with Dixon last June.

The Smith family also has a notorious reputation locally for the practices of its restaurant company, Atlas Restaurant Group, which has been aggressively buying up struggling restaurants and other properties. The company has faced controversy ([link removed]) for policies ([link removed]) that restrict service based on racist and arbitrarily enforced dress codes.

Smith has been less shy than his counterparts in other cities about his plans to influence the Baltimore Sun’s coverage. Sun employees shared anonymous accounts with outside reporters (Baltimore Banner, 1/16/24 ([link removed]) ) of a closed door meeting in which Smith reportedly admitted to wanting to remake the Sun to be more like his local TV station, including featuring unscientific polls on the front page.


** The Sun mythology
------------------------------------------------------------
WaPo: Baltimore Sun staff clash with new owner: 'Don't know how to reason with him.'

The Washington Post (1/17/24 ([link removed]) ) presented the Baltimore Sun's Freddie Gray Pulitzer nomination as a quality seal of approval.

As part of catastrophizing Smith’s purchase of the Baltimore Sun, media have promoted the newspaper’s legacy as if it were unquestionably vaunted, setting up a good/evil binary. In reality, there has long been substantial local criticism of the Sun, including its coziness with powerful interests, its legacy of problematic hero-reporters ([link removed]) , and its negative ([link removed]) characterizations of Baltimore’s Black and other marginalized communities.

The Baltimore Banner (1/16/24 ([link removed]) ) brought up the the Sun’s credentials in challenging Smith’s characterization of the newspaper:

Asked Tuesday during the meeting whether he stood by [negative] comments [about newspapers] now that he owns one of the most storied titles in American journalism, Smith said yes. Asked if he felt that way about the contents of his newspaper, Smith said “in many ways, yes,” according to people at the meeting.

The Baltimore Sun won the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for local reporting.

The Banner article was written by three reporters, all of whom previously worked for the Sun.

The Pulitzer Prize was invoked again by the Washington Post (1/17/24 ([link removed]) ) as prima facie evidence of the Sun’s intrinsic goodness. The Post recounted an exchange in which Smith suggested to his new employees that the officers involved in Freddie Gray’s death in 2015 were innocent. A staffer challenged him on the point.

“You may believe that they killed somebody,” Smith said. “I’m not here to tell you they did or didn’t.”

The Sun was a Pulitzer finalist for its coverage of Gray’s death.

I previously wrote for FAIR (9/22/23 ([link removed]) ) about how the Sun’s coverage of Freddie Gray’s death leaned almost entirely on the statements of police and promoted police officers as heroes, while marginalizing or ignoring the statements of witnesses, who were the Black residents of Gray’s former neighborhood. The Sun has refused to share new evidence that has emerged in Gray’s death since 2015, failing to correct the record on its mistakes, despite the case being one of the biggest stories in Baltimore’s history.

Likewise, the Sun’s coverage of the riots in Baltimore after Freddie Gray’s death was barely distinguishable from how Fox 45 reports on Baltimore’s youth. As FAIR (4/29/15 ([link removed]) ) reported at the time, Sun reporters (4/28/15) repeated a false police story that teenagers had been planning to “purge” that day and attacked police, “pelting officers with water bottles and rocks,” as if unprovoked. The Sun missed the real story of how police fomented a riot by locking down teenagers after school and not letting them return home (Mother Jones, 4/28/15 ([link removed]) ), among other provocative actions.
Baltimore Sun news article: 'Purge' Spreads Quickly Through City

The Baltimore Sun's sensationalized coverage (4/28/15) of anti-police protests failed to contextualize how Baltimore police had provoked violence.

The Sun has continued to portray Baltimore’s Black youth as de facto criminals in many stories (e.g., 9/15/20 ([link removed]) ), often hiding the racism behind a sheen of “both sides” reporting.

Conversely, although Fox 45 has been an easy target for liberal reporters and politicians, not all of its coverage has been as supportive of powerful interests as the Sun’s reporting. Fox 45 (3/19/21 ([link removed]) ) was aggressive in its effort to expose corruption by Nick Mosby, the current City Council president, and former state’s attorney Marilyn Mosby ([link removed]) —a Baltimore power couple who recently divorced. (She filed ([link removed]) an FCC complaint against the station, accusing it of racist coverage.) Marilyn Mosby was ultimately indicted and convicted by the federal government for perjury
([link removed]) and mortgage fraud ([link removed]) .

By contrast, the Baltimore Sun published several editorials in support of the Mosbys and minimizing their scandals ([link removed]) , including one (3/23/21 ([link removed]) ) arguing that the federal investigation into their possible crimes was “not good for Baltimore.” (One member of the three-person editorial team at the time, Andrea K. McDaniels, is married to a long-time vocal Mosby supporter ([link removed]) , Zach McDaniels, who helped Mosby on the Freddie Gray case. Andrea McDaniels is now managing editor of the Baltimore Banner.)


** Banner escapes scrutiny
------------------------------------------------------------
Banner: New Baltimore Sun owner insults staff in meeting, says paper should mimic Fox45

The Baltimore Banner (1/16/24 ([link removed]) ) reported that David Smith, who called print media was “so left-wing as to be meaningless dribble,” was asked by Sun staff "whether he stood by those comments now that he owns one of the most storied titles in American journalism."

As for the Banner, the Sun’s chief competitor, it has adopted a superior tone in its coverage of the Smith takeover (1/16/24 ([link removed]) , 2/5/24 ([link removed]) ), but it has its own ties to the Smith family. The Banner has held ([link removed]) events ([link removed]) in partnership with Atlas restaurants, which are owned by the Smith family, and published article after article that cover Atlas, a Banner advertiser, in a favorable light (e.g., 7/11/23 ([link removed]) , 10/2/23
([link removed]) , 10/18/23 ([link removed]) ).

The Banner has also escaped any scrutiny of its own ownership model. As I previously wrote about for FAIR (12/21/23 ([link removed]) ), the Banner is nominally a nonprofit organization—an “independent” outlet, according to Nieman Lab (1/22/24 ([link removed]) )—but it is owned by Stewart Bainum, Jr., the very wealthy CEO of Choice Hotels and a nursing home chain, as well as a one-time state politician. He established the Banner after failing to purchase the Sun.

A Democrat, Bainum was described by the national press as the “savior” of Baltimore media (Washington Post, 2/17/21 ([link removed]) ), but the Banner’s board and staff are almost entirely made up of people from the corporate world, its content is buried behind paywalls, and it has platformed right-wing sentiments, including transphobia (9/20/22 ([link removed]) ). Also, like the Sun, it has a habit of parroting what police say (8/27/22 ([link removed]) ) and not offering retractions when those stories turn out to be false
(8/30/22 ([link removed]) ).

Smith obviously poses a real threat to the possibility of fair and accurate Baltimore news. At the same time, he serves as a convenient scapegoat for a much deeper and broader problem: the unchecked control of the media by corporate interests, sometimes in the form of what seem like wealthy benefactors.
Read more ([link removed])

Share this post: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Twitter"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Twitter" alt="Twitter" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Facebook"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Facebook" alt="Facebook" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Pinterest"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Pinterest" alt="Pinterest" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn" alt="LinkedIn" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Google Plus"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Google Plus" alt="Google Plus" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Instapaper"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Instapaper" alt="Instapaper" class="mc-share"></a>
​

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .