Michael Bloomberg wrote an opinion piece Thursday saying he is endorsing Kamala Harris for president. Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]


** OPINION
------------------------------------------------------------


** A major news owner bucks the trend with a presidential endorsement
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bloomberg, shown here in June of this year. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung, Pool, File)

Michael Bloomberg — founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, and the former mayor of New York City — wrote an opinion piece ([link removed]) Thursday saying he is endorsing Kamala Harris for president.

Bloomberg listed the various policies of Harris on which he agrees: abortion rights, immigration, the economy, climate change, public health and public safety. And then there’s the other factor: personal integrity.

Bloomberg was highly critical of Donald Trump, particularly for Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 insurrection and for constantly (and wrongly) casting doubts over the result of the 2020 election. Bloomberg wrote, “Because for him, nothing — not America, not our Constitution, not democracy, not the rule of law, not the lives of police officers or any other citizen — matters more than his own vanity and glory.”

He finishes by writing, “I don’t know Harris well — we have only talked a couple of times — but I’ve been impressed by the way she has run her campaign: reaching out to independents and Republicans and rallying voters of all parties by offering a positive vision of the country. She is determined to lead our nation forward, and she understands that the only way to do that is by bringing people back together. I’m ready. I think most Americans are, too. And that’s why I hope undecided voters of all political stripes will join me in voting for Kamala Harris for president.”

A NOTE FROM OUR SPONSOR
[link removed]


** Don’t miss the 71st Scripps Howard Journalism Awards!
------------------------------------------------------------

The winners are in! Celebrate the best in American journalism during the 71st Scripps Howard Journalism Awards. From groundbreaking investigative work to cutting-edge storytelling, the awards spotlight the news organizations and journalists who go the extra mile to uncover the truth and drive change. With $170,000 in prize money, the Scripps Howard Journalism Awards honor high-impact journalism across television, newspapers, podcasts and more. Don’t miss this showcase of excellence and impact!

Watch now ([link removed]) .


** This is a problem
------------------------------------------------------------

I (and many others) have been writing about this for several days now. Many on the right are thoroughly convinced that Donald Trump is easily going to win the presidential election. And while Trump very well could win, he very well could lose, too. The election is believed to be a toss-up at this point. You can find plenty of polls that suggest either candidate might win, but in pretty much all of them, the polling is within the margin of error.

Meaning even the polls aren’t sure.

The issue, however, is that many on the right, relying on polling and stories from conservative outlets, aren’t even considering the idea that Trump could lose.

The New York Times’ Ken Bensinger and Kaleigh Rogers wrote ([link removed]) , “The partisan polls appear focused on lifting Republican enthusiasm before the election and — perhaps more important — cementing the idea that the only way Mr. Trump can lose to Vice President Kamala Harris is if the election is rigged. Polls promising a Republican victory, the theory runs, could be held up as evidence of cheating if that victory does not come to pass.”

Bensinger and Rogers point out that many partisan polls predicted a “red wave” in the 2022 midterms. There was no “red wave,” as nonpartisan polls accurately predicted.

There’s much more detail in the Times’ story about polling and where the election could end up.

But let’s be clear: No one can say with any certainty that they know who is going to win this election.

Oh, I also want to point out this story. The Washington Post’s Cat Zakrzewski, Naomi Nix and Jeremy B. Merrill with “In the podcast election, top shows cast doubt on integrity of 2024 vote.” ([link removed])

They lead with this chilling paragraph: “More than two dozen popular podcasts have aired claims preemptively casting doubt on the integrity of the 2024 election, disseminating unsubstantiated claims on a popular medium that operates largely outside the view of tech industry monitors.”

These include podcasts such as “The Joe Rogan Experience,” “The Ben Shapiro Show,” “The Charlie Kirk Show” and “The Dan Bongino Show.”

The Post writes, “Some of the hosts or their guests have echoed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s claims that Democrats are preparing to steal the election. Experts say the baseless allegations could prime listeners not to accept the results if the former president loses the razor-tight race. During October appearances on the Shapiro and Rogan shows, Trump said that Democrats were cheating and that the media was interfering with the election.”

Also, here’s more from Axios’ Mike Allen: “What Trump is being told.” ([link removed]) Allen reports Trump is being fed positive stories about his chances, saying he’s in significantly better shape in swing states than he was in 2020.

But, Allen writes, “This remains a 50-50 election, folks, with polling from all seven swing states falling within the margins of error.”


** Wall Street Journal offers barbed assessments of the presidential candidates, but no endorsement
------------------------------------------------------------

For this item, I turn it over to Poynter media business analyst Rick Edmonds.

No surprise. The Wall Street Journal ran the first of two editorials ([link removed]) on the major party presidential contenders Wednesday night, while also confirming that it will continue its 92-year-old tradition of not endorsing.

First up was Kamala Harris; thoughts on Donald Trump to follow soon. The Journal offered a mixed-to-negative review under the headline, “A Harris Victory Means a Fourth Obama Term.”

The editorial attacked her as a free spender on an array of domestic programs and said it lacked confidence in how she would handle a “dangerous moment” in foreign affairs. It gave a nod to her running a capable campaign on short notice and trouncing Trump in the debate. The editorial writers also sympathized with Republicans who are breaking with their party because of their loathing of Trump.

The Journal’s voluminous opinion section has seemingly been at war with itself since Harris entered the race, going back and forth about whether to fear more her “progressive” policies or Trump’s erratic behavior, worsening as the campaign goes on.

Even without an endorsement, the pair of essays could hint at how the Journal would like to see you vote. Benjamin Mullin, now a New York Times media reporter, pinpointed in a 2016 Poynter story that a skewering of Hillary Clinton was a Trump recommendation in disguise ([link removed]) .

The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today have earned varying degrees of angry pushback from staff and readers for not endorsing. The Journal’s predictability will keep the peace among those constituencies. You could argue that the Journal’s approach of letting the voter decide without a thumb on the scale was the way to go right along.

I’ll offer a mild dissent. “We haven’t endorsed since Herbert Hoover” is catchy but also evasive. Isn’t that just a dressed-up version of the dispiriting “we’ve always done it that way” excuse? The Journal also kept readers happy for decades by running acres of stock tables. Then that didn’t make sense anymore and they stopped. Diamonds are forever, but why, exactly, are nonendorsements, too?


** Gannett ends third quarter in the red despite growing digital metrics
------------------------------------------------------------

For this item, I turn it over to my Poynter colleague, Angela Fu.

Gannett continued to grow digital revenue and adjusted EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) last quarter, though it ended the period with a net loss, the company announced Thursday ([link removed]) .

During the quarter ending Sept. 30, Gannett, the largest newspaper chain in the country, suffered a net loss of $19.7 million, compared to a $2.6 million loss during the same period last year. The company, however, was able to grow adjusted EBITDA 5.6% to $62.9 million, as well as several digital metrics.

Gannett now has 2.06 million digital-only paid subscriptions. Its digital subscription revenue grew 25% last quarter to $50.1 million, and the average revenue it gets per user in digital is now $8.16. Total digital revenue grew to $277.4 million and now makes up 45% of total revenue. One of the company’s long-term goals is to shift its revenue mix so that digital makes up a greater proportion.

Total revenue fell 6.2% to $612.4 million, in part due to businesses Gannett has either sold or shut down. One of the businesses cited by executives on an earnings call Thursday is the product review site Reviewed, which shut down Friday, resulting in the layoff of 73 employees.

During the last quarter, Gannett increased its free cash flow by 168% year-over-year to $19.8 million. It paid down $28.5 million of debt and now owes $1.06 billion stemming from its 2019 merger with GateHouse. Gannett refinanced its debt earlier this month, which CEO and president Mike Reed called an “important milestone.”

“We believe our ability to successfully refinance our debt reflects the strength of our long-term strategy and the progress we have made executing against our plans, especially this year as we have intentionally had stabilization at the forefront of our collective efforts,” Reed said. “That means we expect stabilizing revenue trends, growing adjusted EBITDA and free cash flow and improving margins.”

Gannett reiterated its guidance for 2025 and 2026, during which the company expects net income to improve to positive. The company is also expecting full-year revenue to grow in 2025 over 2024, Reed said. “Our audience engagement is driving positive momentum across our digital business.”

The company, which owns USA Today and more than 200 local papers, surpassed 200 million average monthly unique visitors for the first time in its history last quarter. Chief content officer Kristin Roberts told investors during the earnings call that audiences are highly engaged with Gannett’s political and sports coverage and defended the company’s decision to stop presidential endorsements ([link removed]) .

“We are committed to becoming the leading digital news and content destination in America,” Roberts said. “To fully harness this potential, we have intentionally returned to our roots as a facts-forward, down-the-center survey of our nation.”

Last quarter, Gannett announced a partnership with Microsoft’s Copilot Daily, an artificial intelligence-powered tool that, among other features, summarizes news stories ([link removed]) . Gannett is “actively engaging” with several AI companies and anticipates forming additional partnerships, Reed said.

“A core component of our strategy is AI,” Reed said. “By leveraging AI, we believe we can enhance operational efficiency and increase the monetization of both current and archived content. The anticipated long-term value from leveraging AI lies in forming strategic partnerships that align the unique strengths of Gannett with those of AI platforms.”

Gannett stock was trading at $4.69 a share Thursday afternoon, down 19% from the previous day’s close.

A MESSAGE FROM POYNTER
[link removed]


** A forward-minded look at the state of journalism
------------------------------------------------------------

Poynter recently brought together a wide array of media experts, leaders and thinkers to discuss the state of the news media industry and themes. You can find the results in Poynter’s recently published OnPoynt report ([link removed]) , which highlights current industry trends in areas such as local news and content creators, misinformation and AI innovations.

Read the report now ([link removed]) .


** And now for more media news, tidbits and interesting links for your weekend review …
------------------------------------------------------------
* The Washington Post’s Ruby Cramer with a deep read on road rage: “Guns. Knives. Bats. Hammers. Hatchets. Spears.” ([link removed])

* The Athletic’s Dan Pompei writes a touching story about former Chicago Bears teammates: “Walter Payton and Matt Suhey, backfield mates turned brothers, and a bond that transcends time.” ([link removed])
* The Washington Post’s Sophia Nguyen with “Suzanne Nossel leaves PEN America near the end of a turbulent year.” ([link removed])
* And one more from the Post. Will Oremus, Trisha Thadani and Jeremy B. Merrill with “Elon Musk says X users fight falsehoods. The falsehoods are winning.” ([link removed])
* Legendary broadcaster Bob Costas is retiring from being a play-by-play announcer. Costas mostly has called baseball in recent years. His last baseball play-by-play job was on TBS when he called the New York Yankees’ series-clinching victory over the Cleveland Guardians in the divisional round. Costas, 72, will continue doing other broadcasting work, including for MLB Network. Costas also has been a regular contributor on sports topics for CNN. The Athletic’s Andrew Marchand has more ([link removed]) .


** More resources for journalists
------------------------------------------------------------
* Our OnPoynt ([link removed]) report offers a forward-minded look at the state of journalism and the news industry.
* Lead With Influence ([link removed]) is for leaders who manage big responsibilities but have no direct reports.
* Encourage an outstanding colleague to apply for Leadership Academy for Women in Media ([link removed]) .

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) .
[link removed]
I want more analysis of the news media to help me understand my world. ([link removed])
GIVE NOW ([link removed])
Thanks to our sponsor [link removed]

ADVERTISE ([link removed]) // DONATE ([link removed]) // LEARN ([link removed]) // JOBS ([link removed])
Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here. ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed] mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20for%20Poynter
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
© All rights reserved Poynter Institute 2024
801 Third Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701
If you don't want to receive email updates from Poynter, we understand.
You can change your subscription preferences ([link removed]) or unsubscribe from all Poynter emails ([link removed]) .