Friday, September 21, 2018


Print readers of The New York Times have been getting a strange front portion with their papers this week, a four-page "wrap" around  the main section proclaiming a vague promise that the Sunday magazine will offer some new content on Sunday.

With a large ear on the front and back, the "wrap" says only "Listen to the World" coming in four days, or three days, or however the countdown is that particular morning.

Wraps are not unusual, although the Times rarely uses them and Spokeswoman Linda Zebian told me this was the longest use of the same "wrap,' which began on Monday. She declined to say how much it is costing the paper to add the section each day. although it includes a small General Electric ad in the front corner.

The paper finally revealed some details of what the campaign is all about in a statement on Thursday that indicated the magazine this week will have almost no text and a "soundtrack." It also claims the first-ever "audio crossword puzzle." 

You can find the audio portions on Sunday morning on the Times website HERE.

"We've never done anything like this before," Magazine Editor-in-Chief Jake Silverstein said in the statement. "It's definitely an experiment in magazine-making, but that's what we love to do." 

And also an experiment in wrap-around promotion.

But will avid readers of the magazine, which is still one of the top revenue magazines in the country, want to switch back and forth from print to web? We'll see.

Tuesday, September 18, 2018


Brett Kavanaugh
The bombshell accusations in The Washington Post by a California professor that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her say as much about media coverage of the issue as they do about the current state of victims' rights and efforts to counter such incidents.

Once again the press has brought a troubling accusation to light, and we have seen it halt the government process in its tracks so that the information can be properly reviewed. This is just the latest way that investigative journalism has raised the issue and may well help to bring justice.

Since The New York Times first broke the story of Harvey Weinstein's many alleged assaults and harassment attempts on women a year ago, the news media has been front and center exposing such incidents ranging from Charlie Rose -- whom the Post earlier exposed and who lost his job -- to Al Franken, who resigned reluctantly from the U.S. Senate after CNN broke the story of his alleged groping of a fellow comic.

Not to mention Ronan Farrow, the son of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen, whose personal life has been touched by sexual abuse claims from his step-sister, Dylan, who has accused Allen of molesting her. A claim he denies. To add to that issue, Allen's wife, Soon Yi-Previn (the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow) went public in an interview with New York this week to defend Allen.

To make matters even more complicated, the writer of the New York piece, Daphne Merkin, has drawn criticism for revealing in the story that she is a longtime friend of Allen, sparking some to say she has a conflict of interest.

Ronan Farrow, reporting for The New Yorker, and the Times shared the most recent Public Service Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the Weinstein story, while Farrow more recently also gained praise last month for uncovering claims by at least six women against former CBS Chairman Les Moonves, which led to his ouster.

This latest Kavanaugh coverage by the Post, which posted the story Sunday night of  Christine Blasey Ford -- who claims Kavanaugh pinned her down, covered her mouth and groped her when the two were in high school -- may be the most impactful of all. It has delayed the confirmation vote for the would-be justice, and may well derail his nomination.

This is oddly familiar territory as it recalls the nomination of Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991, who was accused by former colleague Anita Hill of inappropriate and sexually harassing comments and actions. In that case, the Senate Judiciary Committee reconvened to hear testimony from both Thomas and Hill. In the end, he was confirmed by a 52-48 vote in the Senate.

In that case as well, it was an inquiring reporter who brought the accusations to light. NPR's Nina Totenberg, now one of the public radio outlet's top journalists, aired the first story on the accusations and an interview with Hill that revealed for the first time what was alleged.

Hear her original report below:

In 2016, Totenberg recounted how the coverage affected her, noting she was facing a contempt charge when she refused to testify before the Senate committee and ended up burning her notes.

What followed was a messy battle between Thomas's supporters and Republican backers and Hill and Democrats who wanted the nomination stopped. It also included dramatic testimony that kept millions riveted to their televisions during the renewed hearings.

But perhaps as impactful was the effect it had on women's rights and the ability of victims to counter sexual harassment and other abusive acts against them, which in many ways gave the first signs of empowerment for women making the most recent claims.

Still, the claims by Ford at such a sensitive and angry time in politics will likely mean a heightened battle with critics attacking her and others wondering what to believe when the committee reconvenes on Monday. The Wall Street Journal weighed in today with an editorial that all but dismissed her claims.

"This is simply too distant and uncorroborated a story to warrant a new hearing or to delay a vote," the Journal editorial page stated. "We’ve heard from all three principals, and there are no other witnesses to call. Democrats will use Monday’s hearing as a political spectacle to coax Mr. Kavanaugh into looking defensive or angry, and to portray Republicans as anti-women. Odds are it will be a circus."

Yes, a three-ring battle. 

But in all of these cases, and perhaps more to come, it is reporters who are bringing the issue to light. They have been the ones following the leads and convincing the victims to come forward so that justice can hopefully be done. In the case of Ford, she wrote letters to at least two members of congress last summer with concerns about Kavanaugh. She wanted to remain anonymous, and did until word of her letters leaked.

She had also reached out to the Post in July with her allegations, but declined to go public until this week, the newspaper reported in its story, stating:

She contacted The Post through a tip line in early July, when it had become clear that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees to replace retiring justice Anthony M. Kennedy but before Trump announced his name publicly. A registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political organizations, she contacted her congresswoman, Democrat Anna G. Eshoo, around the same time. In late July, she sent a letter via Eshoo’s office to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

In the letter, which was read to The Post, Ford described the incident and said she expected her story to be kept confidential. She signed the letter as Christine Blasey, the name she uses professionally. 

Though Ford had contacted The Post, she declined to speak on the record for weeks as she grappled with concerns about what going public would mean for her and her family — and what she said was her duty as a citizen to tell the story.

She engaged Debra Katz, a Washington lawyer known for her work on sexual harassment cases. On the advice of Katz, who said she believed Ford would be attacked as a liar if she came forward, Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in early August. The results, which Katz provided to The Post, concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.

Quite a bit of journalism. But the kind of reporting that is crucial when these issues are at stake, both for the news outlets involved and the suspects and victims. 

And that is why more than ever news outlets need to be careful as they continue covering this story, others that have come along and still more that will probably continue to come up.

A 2017 report from the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University warned that coverage of this issue at this time is crucial: "Figuring out how to talk about rape and sexual assault is one of the biggest challenges a journalist can face. The lack of proof that accompanies the crime is only one difficulty of covering an issue that is intimate, intense, and emotional for victims. The shame and stigma they feel can make it difficult for reporters to build trust with sources, to properly report on the severity of crimes without being gratuitous, and even to choose the very words they use to avoid injecting bias into the story."

The report also quoted Bruce Shapiro, executive director of Columbia University’s Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, as saying, “This is one of the most pervasive forms of violence in our society, and yet it is one that has been historically silenced and carries the greatest stigma for victims ... As reporters, we are confronted not only with the suffering of the survivor, but also our own prejudices and preconceptions, fears, past experiences, and ethical conflicts.”

Most news outlets have been pretty responsible in their reporting, with numerous sources and background checks in many cases. With more and more eyes on the issue, and the press, that must not change.

Tuesday, September 11, 2018


From APME and ASNE today:

ASNE, APME approve merger plan to become News Leaders Association

Austin, Texas (Sept. 11, 2018) - At this pivotal moment for journalism and freedom of the press, two of the most significant organizations in journalism have voted to merge and become one voice for the industry.  

The formation of the News Leaders Association, combining the American Society of News Editors and Associated Press Media Editors, was approved by the two groups' members during their joint News Leadership Conference in Austin.

ASNE and APME will continue to work jointly on major projects during the coming year as legal steps toward the merger are completed. NLA is expected to be in place by the 2019 News Leadership Conference Sept. 9-10 in New Orleans.

In this extraordinary time of upheaval across the news industry, as well as forces outside it, leaders and members of ASNE and APME believe that now is the time for journalism leaders to come together to make great impact.

"These are challenging times for our business and our country," said Nancy Barnes, incoming president of ASNE for 2018-19. "We believe joining our two organizations will only strengthen our ability, as journalism leaders, to stand up for the principles we hold dear."

"Editors' jobs have never been more challenging, and we believe that our groups are stronger together as we work to be a valuable resource for leaders at news organizations of all sizes," said APME President Angie Muhs.

The mission statement of NLA reads: "The News Leaders Association is committed to leading, nurturing and serving journalism and democracy."

"There's never been a more important time to create an organization vigorously committed to defending and explaining the values of an independent press in a democratic society," said outgoing APME President Jim Simon. "NLA is also committed to reimagining our work so that it's relevant to a broader range of leaders from a variety of backgrounds and to the needs of a rapidly changing journalism landscape."

After years of working closely together to further the cause of journalism, both organizations are excited to become one while also honoring the long histories of both ASNE and APME.

"We have gotten to this point with the drive and determination to create an organization that keeps advancing the core causes that allow journalism to have a vital impact on society and democracy," said outgoing ASNE President Alfredo Carbajal. "Those include defending the First Amendment, pushing for greater diversity and inclusiveness in news stories and newsrooms and developing newer generations of news leaders."

NLA encourages all journalists, from across disciplines and platforms, to join in this cause. The organizations are stronger together, and now is the time to step up and become a member of something that matters. To become a member, simply visit or

Both ASNE and APME will continue to exist in 2018-19, working together closely on our top journalistic priorities, details of the merger and the 2019 conference planning. Join either organization now and automatically become a member of NLA when the merger is final.

Both organizations are a part of merged committees that include Conference, Diversity, First Amendment, Leadership and Media Literacy. Become a member of ASNE or APME and immediately make an impact by contributing to committee work.

As opposing voices get louder, leaders in the industry need to step up and join in the fight for democracy.

Thursday, September 6, 2018


Did The New York Times go too far publishing an anonymous Op-Ed column from an apparent White House official who sought to reveal that many of his advisers are working to "thwart" parts of his agenda?

As the column, posted Wednesday night and published in today's paper, says in part:

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular "resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

Strong and likely necessary words given the state of the presidency. But is this the best use of the respected Times Op-Ed page, which is seen as true arbiter of judgment, opinion and balance? 

Offering a place for an insider to expose what is happening in the White House is an important part of journalism. But one that could have been done in a story, and is being done regularly in current news coverage, not to mention Bob Woodward's new explosive book: Fear: Trump in the White House, which is set to be published next week and is already sparking strong reaction given Woodward's reputation and skills as a quality reporter.

Woodward cites many unnamed sources who are revealing frightening examples of Trump's ineptness and chaotic approach. The Times could do the same in news stories quoting this same person. But lowering the coveted Op-Ed page to such levels seems beneath the paper's respectability.

The column also offers little information to readers on who the columnist is in terms of hierarchy or influence, stating that he or she is a "senior official in the Trump administration?" What does that mean? A cabinet person? A close adviser? A deputy assistant something or other? 

And that has sparked a guessing game in D.C. not seen since the days of Woodward's Deep Throat, the mystery parking garage source who help him and Carl Bernstein bring down another Republican president who misbehaved in office and faced impeachment calls. Deep Throat remained unknown for more than 40 years until former FBI official W. Mark Felt revealed it himself in 2006.

Will this guessing game take attention away from the actual issues being unearthed by the Op-Ed, Woodward and others? Perhaps not. But it adds another layer of chatter that diverts attention from true issues of the day such as national security, gun violence, climate change, education and other current demands for change.

CNN and Fox are among those already speculating who the author might be, with Fox reporting on odds makers already setting a betting line. (One of the favorites at 5-2 is Attorney General Jeff Sessions.)

With the Op-Ed column, the paper also posted and published the following editor's note:

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

The Times has had a long-running problem with anonymous sourcing, coming under fire when such sources are used for news and information that seems less than necessary. In early 2016, a revised policy was issued that said, in part:

At best, granting anonymity allows us to reveal the atrocities of terror groups, government abuses or other situations where sources may risk their lives, freedom or careers by talking to us. In sensitive areas like national security reporting, it can be unavoidable. But in other cases, readers question whether anonymity allows unnamed people to skew a story in favor of their own agenda. In rare cases, we have published information from anonymous sources without enough questions or skepticism — and it has turned out to be wrong.

The use of anonymous sources presents the greatest risk in our most consequential, exclusive stories. But the appearance of anonymous sources in routine government and political stories, as well as many other enterprise and feature stories, also tests our credibility with readers. They routinely cite anonymous sources as one of their greatest concerns about The Times’s journalism.

Revealing, as the anonymous Op-Ed writer did, that "meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back" seems like old news, albeit important news.

And, again, something that could be in a news story.

Back when the Times had a Public Editor, who could weigh in on such topics, the issue came up repeatedly. From the time the first public editor, Daniel Okrent, was hired in 2003 to the dismissal of the last one, Liz Spayd in 2017, the public editor column focused on anonymous sourcing more than 100 times.

The last such time was in February 2017 and had Spayd asking, "The risk of unnamed sources? Unconvinced readers." She stated in that column, "There is a wide and perilous gulf between the value journalists place on anonymous sources and the value readers do. Some may never accept information with roots they cannot see. But many others might, if more rigor was placed on convincing them. With a new administration in office and so much at stake, now is a good time to approach that task in earnest."

Former Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan, who spoke out many times on anonymous sourcing during her time in the job, weighed in on Twitter today about the Op-Ed. "It's a good day not to be the Public Editor of the New York Times," wrote Sullivan, now a media columnist for The Washington Post.

Such a move also gives Trump another excuse to attack the paper as he has done for years. I do not agree with his Tweet last night that it amounts to "treason" or that it was "gutless." And I certainly reject his claim that "the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"

Trump's blabbering public response, posted by the Times HERE and below, also does not hold water as it has his usual false complaints and weak arguments that the newspaper is failing or lying.


But what the anonymous column does do is take a valuable tool like anonymous sourcing and abuse it to make a point that can be made off the Op-Ed page. And in a way that focuses attention on the news part of it and not the location.

Still, the erratic behavior of Trump, which continued again as he blasted the newspaper with a tirade of inaccuracies and unfounded calls for legal action, is a major issue. This Op-Ed may later be seen as the catalyst for what could be a serious opposition to Trump that ends with his removal, either by congressional action or the 2020 election.

The fact that one column in a newspaper is causing such a stir and strong response is a great sign that the Times and many other newspapers still have the influence they deserve. The Times is considered by many to be the best newspaper in the country. No argument here. And its Op-Ed page, which was the first ever when it initially appeared in 1970,  has long been a leader in public discourse and debate. This clearly shows that it remains an important and influential part of the news and opinion echo chamber.

Let's hope it stays that way.

Tuesday, September 4, 2018


The Village Voice's final print edition in 2017
My strongest memory of the Village Voice was the 2000 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting it won for an amazing series on AIDS in Africa by Mark Schoofs, who went on to do great work for The Wall Street Journal, ProPublica and most recently Buzzfeed.

When I was lucky enough to interview Schoofs after that great honor, he explained how he had spent six months researching the story, in large part due to the support from the newspaper and its then-editor Don Forst who spent some $17,000 on the project. Along the way, Schoofs contracted malaria and found himself briefly arrested.

But it was apparently worthwhile as it brought the paper its third and what would turn out to be its last Pulitzer Prize.

So it was sad and disappointing to find out on Friday that the longtime news outlet was being shut down. Why? Economics, of course. The same economics that killed its print edition a year ago and has crippled many news outlets at a time when the kind of in-depth, ruthless and probing journalism is needed in this country.

Mark Schoofs receivig his 2000 Pulitzer Prize
Not just because we have a president who consistently lies and attacks the press, but because so many issues -- from crime to education to the environment -- are underserved and facing real challenges.

“This is a sad day for The Village Voice and for millions of readers,” Voice owner Peter D. Barbey told The New York Times on Friday. “The Voice has been a key element of New York City journalism and is read around the world. As the first modern alternative newspaper, it literally defined a new genre of publishing.” 

The Voice, which launched in 1955, was the first of a string of so-called "alternative" papers that have done some of the most important news in our recent history. Not alternative facts, as some powers-that-be would like to put forth. But alternative journalistic approaches that take progressive issues, under-served readers and true investigations of those who have the money and influence to affect our way of life.

The Voice led to similar probing publications such as the San Francisco Bay Guardian  -- launched in 1966 by publisher Bruce Brugmann, who would declare its job was to "report the news and raise hell" -- Portland's Willamette Week, which took its own Pulitzer in 2005 for exposing former Gov. Neil Goldschmidt's past sexual misconduct with a 14-year-old girl; and the Chicago Reader, which just this year was honored for exposing the continued use of "contract housing" to dupe low-income families.

During my time covering media and news issues, first at Editor & Publisher and then at Media Matters for America, I found many of these alternative news outlets -- the Voice among them -- to be key sources for reporting on the mainstream media in their towns and nationally. In addition to all of their hard-edged, probing and often dissenting opinion journalism, they are often the only watchdogs keeping an eye on the traditional press.

From the Houston Press detailing buyouts and layoffs at the daily Houston Chronicle -- and their effect on coverage -- to the Washington City Paper revealing how much local TV affiliates were making from the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to corporate campaign contributions.

The last edition of the Boston Phoenix in 2013
The Association of Alternative News Media now lists 107 such publications, with the Bay Guardian and the Boston Phoenix closed a few years ago, and now the Voice. At one point, that group numbered 135, according to AAN Executive Director Jason Zaragoza.

Thirteen years ago, several of the largest weeklies, including the Voice, joined forces to forge something of a power structure when its then-parent company, Village Voice Media combined its six publications with 11 others from the rival New Times Media to form a new company estimated at the time to be worth $400 million.

Fast forward to 2018 and Voice Media Group -- as it's known today -- has only five alternative outlets. It sold off the Voice in 2012.

"We lost quite a few members in the years after the recession," Zaragoza told me Monday. "But have held steady in the past few years ... Some of the larger cities have been among the biggest hits."

Of course these traditional alternative news outlets are not the only sources anymore for in-depth and opposition reporting that challenges the mainstream. There is the growing non-profit news world that includes award-winning sites like ProPublica and the Texas Tribune, as well as many online outlets ranging from Democracy Now to The Young Turks

But the independence and scrappiness of the true alternative weeklies is a key element in today's journalism. While many are still going, the loss of the oldest and most well-known is a detriment.

Jason Zaragoza
"A lot of our publications were launched in opposition to or to fill the gaps of what the mainstream wasn't covering," Zaragoza told me. "Alt weeklies have really filled that gap. They also benefited from not having to be on the daily cycle."

For many of us, these were the first places we learned about the fringe world, deviant sex, hard drugs, outsider politics and gritty reality. And it was all treated with respect, in a way. Some of the first published news profanity appeared in the Voice or the Bay Guardian, while others exposed the true corporate greed in many areas, along with life in the underground -- be it music, art or transgender and bisexual experiences.

In some ways, the alternative press is the essence of all journalism -- finding out the truth without judgment and explaining it to others.

"When they are at their best, they are really highlighting the gaps in the daily paper's coverage or the biases or the ownership's conflicts of interest," Zaragoza said. "The problems alt weeklies face are very similar to the challenges all media is facing. We are seeing this at the dailies, in magazines, in all print media."

Hopefully, that doesn't mean the end of them all. But this ending is bad enough.

Sunday, September 2, 2018

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT WEBSITE WHEN REPORTING ON POPE CRITICISM, the right-wing web page that has been credited with sparking the latest accusations against Pope Francis, has a history of misleading reporting and a clear anti-choice and anti-gay agenda - a fact missing from many of the mainstream outlets citing its reporting.

The website last week reported first that Archbishop Carlo Maria ViganĂ², 77, had accused Pope Francis in a lengthy letter of repealing strict sanctions put on Archbishop Theodore McCarrick by his predecessor, Pope Benedict, stemming from alleged abuses committed by McCarrick that were recently revealed. The website further reported on Friday that McCarrick continued making public appearances despite the sanctions.

The claims have drawn worldwide attention and sparked new calls for the pope's resignation, with news sources from The New York Times to the Associated Press citing LifesiteNews, but describing it as simply a conservative website.

In reality, the web page has an open opposition to abortion, gay rights and euthanasia and has been cited in the past for misleading reporting., a respected fact-checking website, has described LifeSiteNews as a "known purveyor of misleading information."

Some examples of such inaccuracies according to

* An April 2018 story wrongly reported that a California law barred parents from removing their children from sex education classes. 

*  An "unproven" story from June 2016 that a Georgia ACLU director resigned because her children were uncomfortable in a transgender bathroom. 

* A false April 2016 story claiming an abortion provider strangled a baby after its birth.

LifeSiteNews was also sued for libel in 2011 by a pro-choice priest who claimed he was defamed. The website reported in 2014 that the case had ended, but did not disclose any settlement and said it cost them $260,000 in legal fees, adding that it still needed $95,000 to pay off that debt. 

The site also showed its bias with an online petition urging readers to "support and pray" for ViganĂ², who has been outspoken against the pope's supportive comments for gay Catholics and those who have had abortions.

This does not mean that ViganĂ²'s letter and comments are not newsworthy. But when mainstream media outlets cite such biased, politically-driven and often misleading news sources, they should be revealed as such as well.

Thursday, August 16, 2018


Bravo to the hundreds of newspapers that made good on their promise to editorialize against President Donald Trump's anti-press rhetoric today.

As noted earlier this week, The Boston Globe launched the effort with a plea last week to its fellow daily papers, and others, to use their opinion space today to rail against Trump's false claims of "fake news," as well as his hateful attacks on the media that include calling the press the "enemy of the people" and all but promoting violence against them.

"Replacing a free media with a state-run media has always been a first order of business for any corrupt regime taking over a country," the Globe editorial stated today. "Today in the United States we have a president who has created a mantra that members of the media who do not blatantly support the policies of the current US administration are the “enemy of the people.” This is one of the many lies that have been thrown out by this president, much like an old-time charlatan threw out 'magic' dust or water on a hopeful crowd."

The Globe first requested other papers to follow in a plea issued on August 10 that urged editorial boards nationwide to take a stand today. Hundreds did, with many linked through the Globe website. The Globe also posted a strong video that included reminders of Trump's hateful press bashing and its continued reasons for protesting.

Among others that weighed in is The New York Times, which stated, in part:

“Public discussion is a political duty,” the Supreme Court said in 1964. That discussion must be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” and “may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
In 2018, some of the most damaging attacks are coming from government officials. Criticizing the news media — for underplaying or overplaying stories, for getting something wrong — is entirely right. News reporters and editors are human, and make mistakes. Correcting them is core to our job. But insisting that truths you don’t like are “fake news” is dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists the “enemy of the people” is dangerous, period.

The Times also published parts of many other newspaper editorials -- from the Arizona Daily Star of Tucson to the Times-Tribune in Corbin, KY. -- claiming the same view, both on its editorial page and online.

Even the conservative Orange County Register weighed in, stating

The news media are not enemies of the people, and a free press is critical to an informed citizenry that seeks to hold its government accountable. Disparaging the press in the face of unfavorable coverage is a cheap way to dodge the issues and wouldn’t be allowed in a basic debate class ... Donald Trump is not the first president to be frustrated by negative press coverage. The press has been adversarial since the earliest days of our nation, when our founding fathers made frequent use of newspapers — some of them owned newspapers — to advance their political ideologies, and more frequently, to disparage each other, often anonymously.

But not everyone obliged, with The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle among those taking a pass. Although each did mention they agreed that Trump went overboard, they said they wanted to remain independent and not join a group effort. "This newspaper’s editorial board has previously responded to Trump’s attacks on news organizations," the Post wrote. "But Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt said Saturday that the board would not participate in the organized response."

Still, those that did use the day to shoot back at the anti-press president made a strong statement that will hopefully carry on as they continue the important work of speaking truth to power.