Reporter’s commentary: Dell, taxes and phony philanthropy spotlighted at Davos event

The Jan. 23 “Making Digital Globalization Inclusive” session in Davos, Switzerland. By World Economic Forum/Christian Clavadetscher

BOSTON — Recent proposals to narrow the wealth gap by taxing the ultra wealthy is gaining momentum and the charitable giving of billionaires like Michael Dell is now under increased scrutiny.

In January, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott recognized the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation for its 2017 contribution pledge to victims of Hurricane Harvey in Houston, the hometown of Dell, the technology industry executive.

The foundation pledged to donate $36 million to Houston residents whose lives were devastated by the storm. While the foundation’s contribution was noteworthy, it’s also important to recognize that five months after the donation it was revealed that Michael Dell bought a $100 million Manhattan apartment for himself, the Wall Street Journal reported. That means that the native Houstonian and the 39th richest person in the world spent nearly three times more on himself than the entire city in which he was raised.

Is that the type of largess worthy of an award by the state of Texas? In comparison, Houston Texans linebacker J.J. Watts, a Wisconsin native, raised $41.6 million for victims of Hurricane Harvey, according to the NFL.

Now, Dell is opposing tax reform claiming that it’s better for billionaires to select their own charities rather than back federal assistance programs. Just days after Abbott honored Dell’s foundation, Michael Dell dismissed proposals for a 70 percent marginal tax rate while appearing on a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

“My wife and I set up a foundation about 20 years ago and we would’ve contributed quite a bit more than a 70 percent tax rate on my annual income,” Dell said during the panel, according to Bloomberg News. “I feel much more comfortable with our ability as a private foundation to allocate those funds than I do giving them to the government.”

Although he didn’t say it directly, Dell’s statement suggested that Americans should trust the company’s judgement — even though it has a history of poor judgement. Also, through donations to his foundation Dell pays a 70 percent tax rate on his annual income. But does he?

Dell’s foundation reported charitable donations of $101.5 million compared with revenue of $961.9 million during 2016, the latest year of publicly available reports filed with the Internal Revenue Service. That admittedly small sample size indicates that the foundation is spending just 10 percent of what it receives.

In January, Bloomberg reported that Michael Dell reaped a $12 billion windfall in December 2018 when he took his company public after operating it privately for five years. His net worth is now estimated to be about $27 billion. Such figures make his comment regarding contributing 70 percent of his annual income to charity seem puzzling.

 

IMAGE CONTROL

A February poll by Morning Consult and Politico found that 45 percent of Americans support a marginal tax rate; 32 percent oppose it. Of course, many billionaires object to tax reform for a variety of reasons, including greed and control. Distributing wealth through dubious philanthropies versus taxes enables the mega rich to control the narrative. Like the Hurricane Harvey donation, it allows them to portray themselves as heroes when they make a contribution that in relation to their total worth is actually marginal.

Such tactics are nothing new for Dell. The company has a history of skirting the truth to create an image that isn’t totally accurate.

For example, in 2010, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fined Dell Inc., Michael Dell and senior executives for using rebates the company received from semiconductor maker Intel Corp. to inflate Dell’s quarterly revenue figures. Fraudulent accounting was employed to impress Wall Street analysts. Just like the Hurricane Harvey donation, Dell overstated conditions to enhance its image.

Unfortunately, such measures can lead to unintended consequences. In about 2012, BloombergNews published an extensive article with several former Dell employees making unflattering comments about Michael Dell’s micro-management style. The story, which included three reporter bylines, is now gone from the Web.

In a 2016 grotesque case of corporate censorship, the Austin Business Journal removed a story that questioned how a company donation may have played a role in Michael Dell receiving an award from a national environmental group. The result was more sanitized news. And then The New York Times reported in early 2018 that Michael Dell buys Twitter followers, an image-conscious tactic that celebrities use to make them appear more popular.

There’s more. Here in Boston, Michael Dell told a late 2017 gathering of the Boston College Chief Executives Club that his company, now called Dell Technologies, had spent $12.7 billion on research and development during the previous three years. The figure contradicted Dell’s filings with the SEC. A company spokeswoman later acknowledged that Dell was factoring in R&D spending of seven companies Dell Technologies acquired when it bought Massachusetts-based EMC Corp. in late 2016. Such incidents demonstrate how desperate Dell is to burnish its public image even when it’s at odds with reality.

 

Dell Technologies Inc. CEO Michael Dell in Davos. By World Economic Forum/ Christian Clavadetscher

DAVOS DEBACLE

The marginal tax question seemed to arise unexpectedly at the conference in Davos. Dell claimed that raising the tax rate for the ultra rich to 70 percent tax rate versus the current top limit of 37 percent would be bad for the country. This time, his effort to spin the truth like Intel rebates was readily apparent.

“No, I am not supportive of that, and I don’t think it would help the growth of the U.S. economy,” Dell asked the moderator. “Name a country where that’s worked, ever.”

Erik Brynjolfsson, director of the MIT Center for Digital Business and seated to Dell’s immediate left, was quick to respond. He said it actually worked quite well in the United States from the 1930s through the 1960s. That’s when the nation’s economy thrived under an average tax rate of 70 percent.

“I don’t have a strong opinion on that proposal, the devil is in the details” said Brynjolfsson who is also a professor at MIT’s prestigious Sloan School of Management. “But I think there’s a lot of economics that suggest that it’s not necessarily going to hurt growth.”

Dell had no immediate response for Brynjolfsson. But his dismissive comments about tax reform gained international media attention. Ironically, Dell took to Twitter in an effort to save face. In a humble brag he indicated that his lack of understanding was due to the noble founding of a computer company while a student at the University of Texas.

“Maybe if I hadn’t dropped out @UTAustin at 19 to start @Dell I would have learned more about history of taxes + probably many other things I missed along the way,” he tweeted. “I certainly have much to learn but I have no regrets about my life journey.”

It’s notable that Dell’s tweet generated 75 comments, according to his Twitter account. However, it’s unclear how many of those comments were favorable —  or written by followers that Dell had bought.

Reporter’s commentary: Attention media execs, credibility counts

 

BOSTON — This month’s BuzzFeed Inc. controversy proves once again that journalism can be its own worst enemy.

A report by the NewYork-based news outlet drew an unprecedented rebuke by Special Counsel Robert Mueller who is leading the investigation into Russia’s influence on the 2016 presidential election. Chronic criers of so-called “fake news” could never have found a better ally.

BuzzFeed, which launched in 2006, established a news division in 2011. The company’s BuzzFeed News was officially formed in 2016 to differentiate the company’s reporting division from its entertainment group. But did it do so effectively? Unfortunately, the quality of BuzzFeed’s news reports— including the early 2017 discredited release of the Steele dossier—suggests no.

The result is an untenable dynamic because BuzzFeed’s dubious reporting is undermining more credible reports and enabling unscrupulous officials to call into question the status of all news media. That’s a dangerous situation in a democracy that depends on a dependable and robust press to ask the tough questions and counterbalance abuse of power. Without credible reporters, the balance tips and corruption gets a free pass. Thomas Jefferson said it best: “An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy.”

 

 

DELL AND A SANITIZED WEB

The stakes are higher now than ever. Yet, one wouldn’t know that based on the reaction of the nation’s journalism schools and journalism organizations where indifference is the default mode.

In April, this piece recounted the details of a flagrant case of corporate censorship in Austin, Texas. In mid-2015, an Austin Business Journal manager said that while I was on vacation, Dell Technologies Inc. threatened the ABJ’s parent company, North Carolina-based American City Business Journals, over its coverage. ACBJ execs buckled under the pressure. Tweets were deleted, a story disappeared, media credentials were denied by Dell. The reporter who at the direction of editors broke several stories about the company was suddenly given an unscheduled performance review stating that his job was in jeopardy despite and unblemished career and the lack of a single human resources issue during 10 years with the company.

Dell Technologies, in collusion with a national media company, successfully targeted a reporter who knew Dell well and had written hundreds of articles about it. (More than 700 stories listed under this reporter’s byline referenced Dell). Dell public relations people routinely made it clear they didn’t appreciate enterprise stories. Yet the ACBJ awarded the reporter its highest honor in 2012 citing his close coverage of Dell.

ACBJ President and CEO Whit Shaw later told Talking Biz News the reporter’s dismissal was “a personnel issue” and declined to provide an explanation for the missing Dell story. The company also tried to cover its tracks by tying the reporter’s separation payout to a non-disclosure agreement — which the reporter rejected on principle.

 

SIGNIFICANCE OF CENSORSHIP

Censorship at the ACBJ has national implications.

American City Business Journals operates dozens of publications nationally including 43 business journals with 3.6 million readers. The company is also affiliated with prestigious magazines such as The New Yorker through a mutual parent company, New York-based Advance Publications Inc.

In late 2015, Whit Shaw said in this video the relationship ACBJ has with Advance and sister companies such a Condé Nast Inc. and the Discovery Channel makes the ACBJ part of a “global media powerhouse.”

But there’s more.

National Public Radio cites ACBJ reports on its news programs and the unsuspecting public justifiably believes it’s receiving fully reported, objective coverage, not company-approved, sanitized news.

Also, Advance Publications is a major supporter of one of the nation’s premiere journalism programs at Syracuse University. Should a university journalism program associate with a company that undermines truthful reporting?

It’s worth noting that Whit Shaw stepped into his position when his father, former Wall Street Journal reporter Ray Shaw, died from a wasp sting in 2009. In the 2015 video, Whit Shaw quoted his father about the ACBJ’s loyalty to its employees. The comment drips with irony when considering how the ACBJ bowed to Dell’s strong-arm tactics and flagrant censorship.

“Years ago when my dad said the most important asset in ACBJ arrives every morning on the elevator and takes the elevator down at night,” Shaw said. “That truly is, that individual truly is the most important asset.”

 

Commentary: Censorship, Ethics and The Power of Journalism

BOSTON — Whit Shaw knows something about power.

The president and CEO of North Carolina-based American City Business Journals rides herd over dozens of publications nationally including 43 business journals with 3.6 million readers. The company is also affiliated with prestigious magazines such as The New Yorker through a mutual parent company, New York-based Advance Publications Inc.

In late 2015, Shaw said in this video the relationship ACBJ has with Advance and sister companies such a Condé Nast Inc. and the Discovery Channel makes the ACBJ part of a “global media powerhouse.”

No one could argue with that.

But the comment raises a very important question: What specifically makes such media companies so powerful? The answer is simple yet at the same time very complicated.

The power of journalism is largely based on credibility. The respect accorded credible outlets emanates from editorial independence, unbiased coverage and truthful reporting. A media outlet becomes worthless when the public loses confidence in the accuracy of stories. It’s a sacred, public trust that can’t be violated. Our American democracy relies on it.

Adolph S. Ochs understood the inherent responsibility and based his approach on the premise of editorial independence.

“It will be my earnest aim,” he wrote in 1896, “… to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.”

 

THE DELL DEBACLE

In April, we recounted the details of a flagrant case of corporate censorship in Austin, Texas. In mid-2015, an Austin Business Journal manager said that while I was on vacation, Dell Technologies Inc. threatened the ABJ’s parent company, ACBJ, over our coverage. ACBJ execs buckled under the pressure. Tweets were deleted, a story disappeared, media credentials were denied by Dell and the reporter who wrote hundreds of unvarnished stories about the company was suddenly given an unscheduled performance review stating that his job was in jeopardy despite the lack of a single human resources issue during 10 years with the company.

Dell Technologies, in collusion with a national media company, successfully targeted a reporter who had written hundreds of articles about the company and knew it well. (More than 700 stories listed under this reporter’s byline referenced Dell). Dell public relations people routinely made it clear they didn’t appreciate enterprise stories. Yet the ACBJ awarded the reporter its highest honor in 2012 citing his close coverage of Dell.

Shaw later told Talking Biz News the reporter’s dismissal was “a personnel issue” and declined to discuss the matter.

Censorship at the ACBJ has national implications. National Public Radio cites ACBJ reports on its news programs and the unsuspecting public justifiably believes it’s receiving fully reported, objective coverage, not company-approved, sanitized news.

Also, Advance Publications is a major supporter of one of the nation’s premiere journalism programs at Syracuse University. Should a journalism program associate with a company that undermines truthful reporting?

 

DEFENDING TRUTH SEEKERS

The litmus test for media outlets — and journalism in general — is how they react to pressure from the powerful. Do they stand up for the truth, or do they stand down? There’s a 2015 scene in John Carreyrou’s book, Bad Blood, that provides a real-world example for how media executives should react to outside pressure.

Theranos Inc., a fraudulent California company, wanted to stop the Wall Street Journal from revealing the truth behind Theranos’ claim that it could run a battery of tests with just a drop of blood. An army of expensive lawyers tried to knock Carreyrou off the story. Journal owner Rupert Murdoch, who stood to lose millions of investment dollars if Theranos was discredited, refused to reign in Carreyrou and Theranos’ executives were exposed as maniacal charlatans. The truth won; America won.

In the Dell debacle, the truth was trampled and America lost.

At the ACBJ, Shaw stepped into his position when his father, former Wall Street Journal reporter Ray Shaw, died in 2009 after being stung by a wasp. In the 2015 video, Whit Shaw quoted his father about the ACBJ’s loyalty to its employees.

“Years ago when my dad said the most important asset in ACBJ arrives every morning on the elevator and takes the elevator down at night,” he said. “That truly is, that individual truly is the most important asset.”

Important maybe, but apparently not valuable enough to defend against a corporate bully.

Technology, the industry workers love to hate

BOSTON —  Imagine a poorly reviewed restaurant that’s infamous for crappy food and service yet enjoys long lines of eager customers. That’s the situation in which the technology industry finds itself today.

The Nov. 1 walkout by an estimated 20,000 Google Inc. employees underscores the contradiction at play. Tech giants like Google have been charged with sexism, ageism, racism, misogyny, treason and more as the industry and its products continue to grow in influence. But U.S. workers seem inexplicably eager to get in tech’s door.

Art pundits: Blockchain technology to upend traditional art world roles

CAMBRIDGE, MASS. — The adoption of blockchain technology has expanded to various business segments and gaining noticeable momentum in the art market.

Panelists participating in an Oct. 13 Massachusetts Institute of Technology event said blockchain is shaking up the art world as more people become educated about the benefits of digital registries and the authentication… Subscribe to read more

Commentary: Censorship, Dell Technologies and the role of journalism watchdogs

BOSTON — Anyone who has used an office kitchen is familiar with the constant disarray despite notes requesting workers to clean up after themselves. Dirty cups are placed in the sink instead of the dishwasher; trash is left on countertops and no one is held responsible — because everyone is responsible. The scenario provides an unlikely parallel to journalism.

There’s a raft of groups and organizations designed to monitor the integrity of the media and members of the media to uphold well-established standards. But it could be argued that no one is taking the lead in protecting journalism’s integrity despite unprecedented attacks from powerful business people and high-ranking officials.

Like a kitchen, any activity that relies on everyone pitching in for the greater good enables a community to take part in monitoring. But it also provides participants an opportunity to escape accountability. The dynamic at play is the result of a sociopsychological phenomenon called “diffusion of responsibility.” In other words, when everyone is in charge of a task, no one has to take charge. That’s what is happening in journalism.

The litmus test for media outlets — and journalism in general — is how they react to pressure from the powerful. Do they stand up for the truth or do they back down? Buckling to censors of the truth undermines the credibility of the press and has dangerous implications. Yet standing down has become tolerated and even accepted by groups that promote themselves as noble defenders of democracy. In August, CNN reported an incident that is symptomatic of what is becoming all too common. Bloomberg News reporter Shahien Nasiripour was removed from his banking beat earlier this year after Wells Fargo CEO Timothy Sloan complained to editors.

In April, this blog recounted the details of a flagrant case of corporate censorship in Austin, Texas. In mid-2015, an Austin Business Journal manager said that while I was on vacation, Dell Technologies Inc. threatened the ABJ’s parent company, North Carolina-based American City Business Journals, over our coverage. ACBJ execs buckled under the pressure. Tweets were deleted, a story disappeared, media credentials were denied by Dell and the reporter who wrote hundreds of unvarnished stories about the company was suddenly given an unscheduled performance review stating that his job was in jeopardy despite the lack of a single human resources issue during 10 years with the company.

Dell Technologies, in collusion with a national media company, successfully targeted a reporter who had written hundreds of articles about the company and knew it well. (More than 700 stories listed under this reporter’s byline referenced Dell). Dell public relations people routinely made it clear they didn’t appreciate enterprise stories. One PR guy emailed that such pieces would hinder the ABJ’s to access Dell execs in the future.

While ACBJ and Bloomberg execs have not been held accountable for their shortsighted personnel moves under threat, other unprincipled national media executives have been exposed this year. NBC News execs, Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, CBS Corp. CEO Les Moonves and 60 Minutes Executive Producer Jeff Fager have all been in the news for abusing their power. Weinstein has faces rape and other criminal charges in New York; Moonves and Fager both resigned their positions.

It’s noteworthy that journalism watchdog groups haven’t been involved in the revelations and subsequent fallout. Instead, it’s been New Yorker magazine and its reporter, Ronan Farrow, who was dismissed from NBC last year when he pressed to continue investigating Weinstein’s history of harassing women. Farrow’s assertion that NBC execs were cowered by Weinstein threats and covered up his abuse has been corroborated by former NBC producer Rich McHugh. NBC officials now say the results of Farrow’s reporting weren’t ready for airing.

There’s a clear difference between poor newsroom judgment and outright corruption. Such behavior is more than unprincipled; it’s illegal. In Texas, a business exec that uses his power get a worker fired can be held liable for tortious interference of employment. Regardless, it’s important that someone — whether it’s a journalism watchdog group or another news outlet — expose wrongdoing to discourage re-occurrences.

“This sort of conduct is tied to over-all climate and oftentimes to how women are seen or valued within an entire organization,” Fatima Goss Graves, the president and C.E.O. of the National Women’s Law Center, told Farrow when discussing the abuse of power. “And there’s no question that the head of the organization sets the tone for the entire organization.”

After all, someone needs to keep the kitchen clean.

Commentary: Telling the truth versus buying the truth via corporate censorship

BOSTON — You can’t engineer the truth. But you can buy it.

Bloomberg News reporter Shahien Nasiripour was removed from his banking beat earlier this year after Wells Fargo CEO Timothy Sloan complained to editors. Nasiripour, a 14-year reporter, was transferred to cover the Trump organization after he had a heated argument with a Wells Fargo public relations person, CNN reported Aug. 27.

Of course, it would be easy for anyone to jump to conclusions and demonize Bloomberg editors for enabling corporate censorship. But that would be too easy. It’d also be unfair because there could be extenuating circumstances and other factors that haven’t been revealed to the public.

However, it’s crucial to note that in March Nasiripour reported this story about Wells Fargo financing the National Rifle Association and the gun industry, which has come under scrutiny after a several mass shootings. It wasn’t a flattering look for Wells Fargo, a company that since 2016 has taken its lumps for a string of widely reported scandals starting with the discovery that workers created fake accounts for customers to meet sales goals.

It’s not unusual for a beat reporter to have a contentious relationship with one of its subjects. Yet it’s totally out of the ordinary for a CEO to intervene in such battles. Wells Fargo is a major customer of Bloomberg’s sister company that sells terminals providing financial data. It’s unlikely Sloan called Bloomberg just to register a complaint; any senior executive could have done that. CEOs call when they want heads to roll. Or in this case, chill enterprise reporting.

Details of Wells Fargo’s influence came just days after more than 300 U.S. news organizations ran editorials supporting reporting freedom. “The press is necessary to a free society because it does not implicitly trust leaders — from the local planning board to the White House,” the Boston Globe wrote Aug. 15.

Those leaders include CEOs who naturally don’t like watchdog reporters. They want lapdogs, pawns. Sloan is probably no exception and he’s justifiably sensitive about bad press. But blaming a reporter for an unflattering story is like blaming a mirror for a bad haircut. It’s nonsensical.

A Bloomberg spokesperson explained the changing of its Wells Fargo reporter by saying: “We make decisions about how we cover those companies based purely on what is best for our readers.” If that’s true, why did Bloomberg determine Nasiripour’s suitability after Sloan’s complaint and not before?

In April, I recounted in this blog post the details of a flagrant case of corporate censorship in Austin, Texas. In mid-2015, an Austin Business Journal manager said that while I was on vacation, Dell Technologies Inc. threatened our parent company, North Carolina-based American City Business Journals, over our coverage. ACBJ execs buckled under the pressure. Tweets were deleted, a story disappeared, media credentials denied by Dell and the reporter who wrote hundreds of unvarnished stories about the company was suddenly given an unscheduled performance review stating that his job was in jeopardy despite the lack of a single human resources issue during 10 years with the company. It was blatant censorship by a bully billionaire in collusion with a national media company.

Dell Technologies had successfully targeted a reporter who had written hundreds of articles about the company and knew it well. (More than 700 stories listed under this reporter’s byline referenced Dell). Dell public relations people routinely made it clear they didn’t appreciate enterprise stories. One PR guy emailed that such stories would make it more difficult for the ABJ to access Dell execs in the future.

“There are some things worth risking everything for,” President Obama recently said when eulogizing Arizona Sen. John McCain.

However distasteful Dell’s pressure on the ABJ was, it’s important to know that it was also illegal. In Texas, there’s a tortious interference law designed to discourage such abuse of power.

A 2012 Fourth Court of Appeals (in San Antonio) ruling on a case called Strickland suggests that the Dell executive who called the ABJ’s parent company didn’t have to make an expressed demand that a reporter was fired. Just the call itself can be considered an act of interference, according to the ruling. “A defendant’s interfering conduct need only be a proximate cause of the harm to plaintiff for there to be liability.”

There’s a clear difference between poor newsroom judgment and outright corruption. The damage media execs do to journalism at large with shortsighted decisions can be incalculable.

During McCain’s eulogy, Obama also said something about the former prisoner of war that news execs — all journalists — should heed when dealing with people of power and censorship issues: “In captivity, John learned, in ways that few of us ever will … how each moment, each day, each choice is a test.”

 

Commentary: For media executives and journalism, it’s time for truth or consequences

 

“Newspapers should have no friends.”

                             — Joseph Pulitzer

 

BOSTON — We’ve seen the enemy of journalism — and it is us.

Support for journalism and related organizations spiked after uber-vocal media critic President Trump was elected in 2016. Celebrities and political pundits alike professed their moral and monetary support for the media and the role it plays in counterbalancing power.

“Nonprofit journalism groups are gearing up with flood of donations,” the New York Times reported.

Such groups came up with catchy, inspirational slogans like “Democracy dies in darkness” or “The truth has power.” Instead of withering morale, the constant badgering by Trump seemed to galvanize members of the media. But it could be argued that the slogans and cheer leading did a disservice by creating the illusion of protection where little existed. The public was given a false sense of security, assuming that the Fourth Estate is safely guarded. In reality the raft of journalism groups has created a diffusion of responsibility. A dynamic in which “a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when others are present,” according to Wikipedia. In other words, everyone expects everyone else to tackle the problem.

Where’s the cavalry? It’s perplexing what the journalism organizations charged with defending credible reporting and journalists are doing with the windfall of donations and timely support. Industry watchdog groups appear to be doing just that, watching. Meanwhile, national, nefarious media executives undermine the integrity of journalism. It’s a missed opportunity to prove the haters wrong and demonstrate a commitment to the truth.

In April, I recounted in this blog post the details of a flagrant case of corporate censorship in Austin, Texas. In summary, in mid-2015, an Austin Business Journal manager said that while I was on vacation, Dell Technologies Inc. threatened North Carolina-based American City Business Journals over our coverage. It caved. Tweets were deleted, a story disappeared, media credentials denied by Dell and the reporter who wrote hundreds of unvarnished stories about the company was suddenly given an unscheduled performance review stating that his job was in jeopardy despite the lack of a single human resources issue during 10 years with the company. It was blatant censorship allowed by a media company with a national footprint.

The Dell debacle was indicative of a much larger problem. News organizations are quick to announce investigations when one of its own is accused of unethical behavior such as fabricating information or plagiarism. News execs are eager to assure readers and viewers that integrity is a paramount concern. But what happens when a media company violates basic journalistic principles? Who investigates them and reports on corrupt managers? No one because most reporters are bound by non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs. They can’t receive crucial severance packages if they reveal unflattering details about their corrupt managers. The result is any possibility of checks and balances is totally short-circuited. News orgs have gamed the system and NDAs shield corrupt managers, giving them tacit permission to abuse their power.

Just a few proposed reforms to consider in an effort to promote the integrity of journalism:

  • It’s time to subject media execs to the same scrutiny as everyone else. University journalism programs could play important roles monitoring and exposing corrupt news orgs and their managers if the mainstream media is hesitant to hold each other accountable.
  • Promote transparency by declaring any news outlet that operates with NDAs ineligible for all awards, state and national. NDAs shield the corrupt and enables them to escape accountability.
  • Reimburse rejected severance packages to encourage journalists to report wrongdoing by media companies.
  • Assign lawyers to tortious interference of employment lawsuits to shine a light on unscrupulous media executives and the bullies who take advantage of them.

 

In Texas, there’s a tortious interference law that provides defendants with up to four times actual damages. A 2012 Fourth Court of Appeals (in San Antonio) ruling on a case called Strickland suggests that the Dell executive who called the ABJ’s parent company didn’t have to make an expressed demand that a reporter was fired. Just the call itself can be considered an act of interference, according to the ruling. “A defendant’s interfering conduct need only be a proximate cause of the harm to plaintiff for there to be liability.”

There’s a world of difference between poor newsroom decision making and outright corruption. We all know that. Yet the patchwork of media-related groups and organizations can be confusing for a reporter attacked for practicing journalism. There’s no dominant group to turn to; what’s worse is that there’s little noticeable solidarity.

One organization, which actually has the word “protect” in its name, said it doesn’t get involved in “labor disputes” when responding to Dell’s censorship. Another group that calls itself “the voice of journalism” came down with laryngitis when briefed about Dell’s tactics.

Such disinterest can have dangerous, far-reaching implications.

Ronan Farrow, now writing for the New Yorker, tried to report on movie producer Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulting women years ago. However, Farrow’s previous employer, MSNBC and NBC, gave into Weinstein’s threats and pulled the plug on Farrow’s story. How many women were attacked by Weinstein in the intervening years? How many careers were ruined because media execs lacked moral courage?

“The question of the complicity of the media and the role the media played in keeping this quiet for as long as it was quiet, are important ones,” Farrow told Recode’s Kara Swisher. “I think there will be more to say about that as time goes on and various investigations into this unfold.”

There’s no reason to wait. Journalism groups and graduate programs need to step in and document incidents. Let news organizations and the executives leading them know that if they abuse their formidable power they’ll be held accountable. Frauds will be exposed and advertisers encouraged to withhold their precious dollars.

They call it a free press, but someone has to pay. In the Dell case, a reporter didn’t actually volunteer, but he was proud to be dumped by Dell for telling the truth. It’s time for others to step up because journalism and the crucial role it plays can’t afford indifference. It deserves better; we deserve better.

Family of Football Player Sues School, Others After Son Dies Post Workout

The family of a Mount Ida College football player, who in 2011 died of a heart attack after a winter conditioning session, is suing the college and related insurance companies.

New Jersey residents Donald and Dara Mazza are seeking punitive and compensatory damages from both the college and the National Collegiate Athletic Association because the February 2016 workout was done at a campus training facility under school supervision. Their son, sophomore Michael Mazza, suffered a seizure and “probable cardiac dysrhythmia” after the training session. The lawsuit claims the session was a “covered event” described by the NCAA’s insurance benefits summary, according to the wrongful death lawsuit initially filed in February in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County.

The claim, which names four different insurance companies and brokers as defendants, doesn’t list a specific dollar amount for damages.

Mount Ida College is a Division III school in Newton, Massachusetts, a Boston suburb. The team listed Michael Mazza as a 6-foot, 3-inch, 295-pound offensive lineman. He was 20 years old with no apparent history of heart problems when he died within 45 minutes of returning to his college dorm room after the Feb. 22, 2016, workout, the lawsuit states.

Commentary: Failing the ‘Fake News’ Test at a Crucial Moment in History

BOSTON — There’s a story missing from the Internet.

It’s not a big story, but it’s an important one. It’s just 250 words long and its content is the result of routine reporting; nothing especially remarkable.

It’s not a blockbuster. The article was written for the Austin Business Journal, a niche publication, about a relatively minor issue. Yet it’s notable because its removal from the Web represents a betrayal of public trust at time when trust is at a premium and journalism is already in a tenuous position.

The story’s disappearance should serve as a wake-up call to anyone who values the truth because its removal was done by a news company with a national reach. It also shows that some American companies won’t hesitate to put its self-interests ahead of the public’s right to know. Censorship remains an option.

The ABJ story was a follow up to a routine piece announcing that environmental group Keep America Beautiful would present CEO Michael Dell with an award in New York City. The follow-up piece highlighted the role that a $75,000 “sponsorship” by Dell may have played in the award. Was it a legitimate award, or did Dell effectively buy it? The online article was deleted more than a week after it ran when Dell Inc., the technology giant based in Round Rock, Texas, threatened the ABJ’s North Carolina-based parent company, American City Business Journals. (Here’s an early version of the deleted piece.)

In early 2016, Michael Dell revealed his opinion of the news business when urging workers to ignore reports that a proposed business deal had hit a snag: “The media business is under a lot of stress and their business model is sort of cratering,” he said. “And what they do to survive in those tough times is they create something called click bait. They create an inflammatory headline. So and so was impregnated by aliens, or whatever, click on here to read about this story, see some ads, try to get some money.”

More than 700 stories about Dell, or referring to the company, appear under this reporter’s byline. Many of them were skeptical of information released by the company and revealed issues such as employee lawsuits Dell officials probably preferred were not reported. They commented for the (deleted) award story and never disputed its accuracy or fairness after it was posted. As such, Dell’s threat more than a week after the story ran raises questions about the company’s motivations.

In April, I recounted in another blog post the details of Dell’s censorship and the series of retaliatory actions it took with the ACBJ as an apparent accomplice. To recap, an ABJ manager said that while I was on vacation in mid-2015 a Dell official threatened our parent company over our coverage. Two weeks later, I was suddenly given an unscheduled performance review that stated my job was in jeopardy despite the lack of a single human resources issue during 10 years with the company. I was then dismissed after breaking another enterprise story about Dell planning to relocate its annual users conference from Austin to Las Vegas.

In April, the ACBJ’s CEO declined to comment on the matter to Talking Biz News, unimaginatively referring to it as a “personnel issue.” He was right. But the problem doesn’t concern the ‘personnel’ a reader would be led to believe; it’s the managers not standing up to corporate bullies.

It’s important to note that the Dell debacle has national implications because the ACBJ operates news outlets in 43 metropolitan areas. Many of the outlets provide content to NPR stations assuming the reporting is unbiased. However, it’s unlikely that this was an isolated incident. How many other companies dictate news coverage in ACBJ newsrooms?

ACBJ is owned by Advance Publications Inc., a New York-based company controlled by the Newhouse family, major donors to Syracuse University’s journalism program. That ownership structure insulates the parent company from accountability, enabling it to promote its support of quality reporting while its own lower-level execs undermine reporting.

Advertisers and the politically connected have influenced news coverage since time immemorial. But such pressures are arguably at their greatest level now as news business profits shrink. As a result, it’s never been more important to guard against anything that can result in biased coverage and violate time-tested principles.

Reporters are like the truth; you have to face them sometime, no matter how much power you have.