This story by Michael Hardy was published by the Texas Monthly. It goes to the heart of serious problems in today’s journalism: is the Internet destroying the audience for daily newspapers? Can daily newspapers survive? The Baltimore Sun was just purchased by the rightwing Sinclair Network, which already owns a large number of local radio stations. Can newspapers be independent when they are owned by billionaires with a political agenda?
Billionaire Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post but he doesn’t seem to have imposed his political views on the newspaper. Billionaire Rupert Murdoch famously bought The New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News. He has pushed his properties to match his politics.
The Los Angeles Times was purchased by a billionaire doctor, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, in 2018. He has not imposed his politics, but he has ordered drastic layoffs in newsroom personnel, which led to a one-day walkout last Friday by the newsroom guild, the first such work stoppage in the newspaper’s 142-year history. The pending layoffs would be the third round of cuts since June.
This is not a good sign for the health of our democracy.
The death of major newspapers over the past few decades has created “news deserts,” regions where there are no newspapers. It is more important than ever to support local journalism, which provide the sole source of information about local events, school board elections and meetings, elections, and local government.
Into the gap comes a new form of journalism, the nonprofit newspaper. Most such enterprises are supported by subscribers, advertisers, and foundation gifts. I support the Mississippi Free Press, which does an amazing job of covering news in the state. I also support the Texas Observer, which is a low-budget newspaper whose scrappy staff is known for investigative journalism. (I also subscribe to The Texas Tribune and The Texas Monthly).
In some cases, even the nonprofits depend on billionaires to keep them afloat. As this story shows, relying on billionaires can be hazardous. In some cases, their gifts come with long strings attached.
In a recent issue of The Texas Monthly, Michael Hardy reported what happened to a new nonprofit journal called the Houston Landung.
In its mission statement, the nonprofit Houston Landing describes itself as an “independent, nonpartisan news organization devoted to public service journalism,” one that “offer[s] solutions to pressing problems” and “holds the powerful accountable.” Its stories are free to read, and its website runs no ads or clickbait. Its vision of an independent, well-funded outlet built on rigorous investigative reporting attracted some of the city’s brightest journalism stars after its soft launch two years ago with financial backing from the philanthropic American Journalism Project and Houston billionaires John Arnold and Richard Kinder.
Among its first hires were Houston Chronicle investigations editor Mizanur Rahman, who became the Landing’s editor in chief (and helped write the mission statement), and the Chronicle’s Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter Alex Stuckey, who became the Landing’s top investigative journalist. Rahman and Stuckey helped build a newsroom of about thirty editors, reporters, photographers, and web designers that routinely punched above its weight, producing major stories about an epidemic of deaths in Harris County jails and a plague of stopped trains in Houston’s East End. Since the website’s official debut in June, it has regularly scooped the competition—including Texas Monthly—on stories ranging from the state takeover of Houston ISD to predatory lending at the Colony Ridge development north of Houston.
The Landing’s success made it all the more shocking when, on Monday morning, Rahman and Stuckey were summarily fired by CEO Peter Bhatia, a fifty-year newspaper veteran and former Detroit Free Press editor in chief who had been in the job for less than a year. Bhatia is longtime friends with Landing board member Jeff Cohen, a senior advisor at Houston philanthropy organization Arnold Ventures—a major funder of the Landing—and a former Chronicle editor in chief. The six-member board of directors appears to have brought Bhatia in to shake things up at the website. (None of the Landing’s six board members agreed to interview requests for this story; the author of this story worked briefly under Cohen at the Chronicle in 2017 and did sporadic freelance copy writing for the Arnold Ventures website from 2019 to 2020.)
“Over recent months I’ve become concerned about whether or not we were fully engaged in the process of being effective in the digital spaces,” Bhatia told Texas Monthly this week. “We’ve been putting out a newspaper on a website. There’s been some really good journalism and some high-impact stuff, for sure. But after a lot of conversations with Mizanur, I reached the conclusion that we had to make a change if we’re going to be as effective as we can in the digital space.” A document prepared for the November meeting of the Landing’s board and obtained by Texas Monthly showed that the site exceeded its 2023 goal for annual page views (1.5 million) and was within striking distance of its goal for unique visitors (1 million). For comparison, the nonprofit San Antonio Report, founded in 2012, claims 500,000 monthly page views.
Stuckey told Texas Monthly that she was blindsided by her firing. Just two weeks earlier, she had received a glowing performance review and a 3 percent pay raise. In a recording of Monday’s termination meeting provided by Stuckey, Bhatia can be heard saying he has “enormous respect for you as a journalist . . . you are an investigative reporter of the highest level.” But, he explains, there is no place for her in the “comprehensive reset” he believes is necessary at the Landing.
“If you had ever come to me and said, ‘I want you to revamp how you do stories,’ I would have done that in a heartbeat,” Stuckey tells him.
“It’s not my job to do that,” Bhatia replies. “It’s the editor’s job.”
“So I’m getting cut off at the knees because you felt that Mizanur didn’t do that?”
“Well, you can jump to that conclusion.”
At the end of the meeting, human resources director Susie Hermsen offered Stuckey three months of severance pay if she signed a nondisparagement agreement. Stuckey refused. “I believe in transparency,” she can be heard saying in the recording. “This is insanity, and I am absolutely not signing anything.”
The Landing’s newsroom was similarly dumbfounded by the firings. Much of the staff converged upon the organization’s sixth-floor office, in Houston’s Montrose neighborhood, on Monday to show solidarity with Rahman and Stuckey. Later, the staff wrote a collective letter to the Landing’s board of directors warning of “significant damage to employee retention and recruitment” and predicting that “the optics of such a massive restructuring during a moment of forward momentum will hurt our fundraising and financial efforts.”
Bhatia acknowledged that the newsroom was in open revolt against his leadership. “I have no illusion that some people are going to leave over this, and I respect that,” he told Texas Monthly. The Landing’s managing editor, John Tedesco, will temporarily take over for Rahman while Bhatia leads a search for a new editor in chief. Tedesco told me that he disagrees with the decision to fire Rahman and Stuckey and fears that “this turmoil will cause our best and brightest journalists to look for the nearest exit ramp.”
The Landing is one of dozens of local nonprofit newsrooms that have sprung up around the country in the past couple of decades. Often funded by a combination of wealthy donors, foundation grants, NPR-style membership drives, and paid events, these nonprofits have been touted as a supplement or even a replacement for declining local newspapers. But some observers worry that such publications are beholden to the whims of their billionaire patrons. (Texas Monthly is a for-profit magazine whose chairman is Houston billionaire Randa Duncan Williams.)
Where did the staff go wrong? Did they write anything critical of charter schools (billionaire John Arnold has poured many millions into promoting charters)? Or did they praise pensions for public service workers (another of Mr. Arnold’s pet peeves)? Or was it something that stepped on the toes of the other billionaire funder, Mr. Kinder? The publication was launched with $20 million, so it would not have been a financial issue.
This is what Thomas Jefferson said about the importance of a free press:
Jefferson believed that a free press was necessary to keep government in check. He wrote that if he had to choose between “a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”:
The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Journalism is a sad casualty of technology. It’s been destroyed. This was still a viable albeit very competitive field when I graduated from college. The late 90s internet boom actually expanded the industry for a brief period. Now it seems like it’s in the final stages of collapse.
It strikes me that we are hastening toward a Jacksonian era of news. During that time, people like Francis Blair wrote need that was openly biased in favor of a particular world view. People openly complained about their opponents’ news sources, much as we suggest today that Fox News created Donald Trump. In that time, increased literacy and demand for good printed entertainment made the number of newspapers and broadside pamphlets soar.
While this brought the reform movements of the time to people in a way that stirred these needed reforms, it also split the nation ultimately over one of those reforms, the issue of abolition of slavery. From Elihu Embree’s The Manumission Intelligencer in Jonesboro, Tn in 1819 (the first anti-slavery newspaper) to the more famous Liberator produced by William Lloyd Garrison, anti-slavery newspapers spread arguments against slavery in increasing numbers. These papers also trumpeted health reforms, prohibiting alcohol, reforming prisons, and promotion of utopian societies of various types.
The major difference then and now is that the many small voices that are arising in the journalistic world are funded by very powerful people. Elihu Embree was a really little guy. Thousands of similar voices arose to argue for a different world. Now small voices seem to be drowned in streams of ideas produced by big money in many small places. These many small voices are actually amplifying a few ideas from a few people.
Enron’s John Arnold who also started funding public pension stuff at what was once the liberal Urban Institute.
The Texas Tribune referenced in the post has a story at its site today about billionaires and, religious-affiliated organizations governing private, prestigious, legacy admission universities, schools like Georgetown and Notre Dame.
Inside Higher Ed, 5 days ago, also covered the story, “More universities join Chicago in settling financial aid lawsuits.” Approx. 200,000 students receiving financial aid allege in a lawsuit, backed by the DOJ, that they suffered from an “inflated price of attendance.”
One university settled for $33.5 mil. I hope Georgetown and Notre Dame go to court, instead of a settlement, so that the public can better understand the process that led to the court filing.
When billionaires control newspapers or media, the public needs to understand that their particular point of view or bias may deliver content through a particular filter. Most conservative billionaires tend to use their acquisitions as a bully pulpit for liberterian ideology. As someone with local Sinclair station that delivers the news, I notice that the local news tries to remain largely unbiased. However, every newscast is accompanied by a National Desk editorial that is pure right wing propaganda. Government should be careful about its relationships with billionaires whose companies replace what would have been a government service or function, particularly in issues of national security. The one relationship that stands out is the US dependence on Elon Musk’s Starlink. The US has spent billions to develop this technology, but Musk’s company owns it.
You make several salient points, the last of which is the most important. We must never allow a citizen who is unconstrained by his fellows to rise to a position of power that controls information. This is particularly problematic in a world where many fortunes are to be made selling knowledge of things that are actually part of the commons.