https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/31/iheartmedia-radio-artificial-intelligence-djs/

The article I will be reviewing this week comes from The Washington Post and was written by Drew Hartnell, a technology writer with the newspaper since 2014. The article, titled “iHeartMedia laid off hundreds of radio DJs. Executives blame AI. DJs blame the executives,” covers the reasons iHeartMedia gave for the layoffs as well as reactions from a few of the on-air personalities who lost their jobs. Hartnell also provides background on iHeartMedia and their 2018 bankruptcy filing. He also interviews someone from an AI-based media technology company that is currently used by IHeartMedia’s online radio systems that could be utilized by over-the-air radio stations in the future.

The article covers a lot of topics, but Hartnell provides links to online articles and documents that back up or provide context to the information covered. In fact, a total of fifteen hyperlinks are included that cover:  iHeartMedia’s press release, Securities Exchange Commission filings, bankruptcy court documents, the history of the company including links to two investment firms (Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners) that leveraged the buyout of Clear Channel and resulted in iHeartMedia’s mountain of debt, and the announcement on Instagram and Facebook Live by one of the on-air personalities who was let go as a result of the mass layoffs. This is an impressive amount of references that allow the reader to see where Hartnell got his facts. This transparency gives the article and Hartnell credibility since these sources can be verified directly.

Hartnell interviews Wendy Goldman, iHeartRadio’s spokeswoman and communications chief, who tries to downplay the number of layoffs compared with the 12,500 employees of iHeartMedia but declined to provide a total number of employees who were let go. But Hartnell includes a link to RadioInsight, an industry newsletter that posted the names of hundreds of “talk show hosts, news anchors, producers, program directors, reporters and drive-time DJs let go from local stations across the country.” He also interviews Jerry Del Colliano, a professor at New York University who also publishes the industry newsletter Inside Music Media, who says that the cuts could equal to more than a thousand people losing their jobs. Hartnell points to conflicting information that iHeartMedia gave to the Securities Exchange Commission in April 2019 that touts the on-air personalities build a “trusted bond and strong relationship” with local audiences. iHeartMedia filed for bankruptcy in 2018, at the same time that Pittman, CEO of iHeartMedia took home $13M in salary and bonuses, and asked the bankruptcy judge to approve an increase in the bonus package for top executives. This information is crucial to understanding what prompted iHeartMedia to change programming directions in an industry that must complete with online streaming services for listeners.

What is lacking are more interviews with on-air personalities who lost their jobs as a result of the layoffs. In the article, Hartnell mentions interviewing six people, but only quotes three of them. The article also could have benefited from interviews with radio station program directors with information about what will replace the human DJs who lost their jobs. The article makes it sound as if local DJs are programming music and news content which is mostly automated already. We get to hear about a company called Super Hi-Fi, whose AI-driven technology is used to program the content on iHeartMedia’s online radio stations, but little is said about what will be used in the over-the-air stations.

Given the amount of links to outside sources, I believe this article is very credible but could have benefited from more information about radio programming and how the layoffs will affect radio station formats. I give the article an A-.

I found this article by CNN truly insightful. Compared to the many other Oscar analysis’ and opinions, this one gave a different perspective. This article gave a business aspect on the matter and how diverse films actually make a lot of money for the industry. The other articles talked about how and why it is such a big issue, simply over the lack of representation; this one covered the facts on how Hollywood, in general, is very diverse and how the problem really is with the Academy. 

The headline was intriguing in itself reading, “Hollywood is more diverse than ever. So why are the Oscars still so white?”. I think this headline is immediately attractive because it narrows the problem down to the Academy, instead of people assuming representation is a major problem in the industry as a whole. There is a link provided under Chauncey Alcorns name, the author of the article, who writes various articles for CNN business. I was more inclined to read this article because of the hyperlink providing more background on him. It can be seen that he has covered other major stories making me trust him more since CNN has trusted him to write that many.

Out of all the Oscars articles I have read, I definitely learned the most from this one. They talked to various people in the business and not only provided their statements over this issue, but also provided actual data and research. Some notable ones being, research from the Annenberg program and the UCLA Hollywood Diversity Study.  The video at the top of the article was also insightful. It briefly went over the Academy’s history, how significant campaigning for big films is and the money it takes to even be recognized for an award. The information in the video was given by New York Times reporter, Kyle Buchanan, who has covered a lot of Oscars content. It was great to hear this information from someone who has reported the subject for so long and was able to explain the trends.

Overall, I think the reporter and his sources are credible. His sources were mostly from CNN, which is not necessarily a bad thing; since they are not relying on outside sources, they are taking responsibility for their own organizations work. The few outside sources that were used, were from trusted news organizations such as, Business Insider, the New York Times, etc. I also appreciated how transparent the article was. Alcorns had stated that CNN and Warner Bros. are both owned by the same company when mentioning Warner Bros. Even though it was not entirely necessary, since it was just a minor mention, I still admired the openness.

There were also no signs of bias or personal opinions on the reporters part. Any personal comments came from the people that CNN business talked to.  The interviewees were significant heads in the business who have years of experience and knowledge such as actors, producers, members from major studios, as well a member of the Academy. Although, I would have liked to see more comments from the Academy. Still, I would not say that CNN completely failed to cover the other side. In that I mean, that the reporter also mentioned the diverse films that have been nominated and won awards and also provided statistics on how there has been at least some improvement in representation.

I was pleased with everything that was covered, especially the data. The only exception that came to mind was when Alcorn mentioned there was only one person of color nominated -I would have liked it if he expanded on this.  A big issue is not just the lack of diversity but also when minorities are acknowledged, it is mostly when they are portraying marginalized roles and rarely in roles of power. To give it a letter grade compared to the other articles I have read, I would give it an A, but to be fair, it is truly a B. I would not give it the full A due to the lack of say on the other side, maybe seeing some direct comments from Academy members would make it seem more neutral.

Looking back at the sports wagering landscape over the past few months, Super Bowl LIV stands out as the not only the biggest betting event over the past couple months but rather the biggest betting event of the year. With the magnitude of action that the sportsbooks will be handling, you can be sure that plenty will be there to cover the action and we will take a look into what’s being said in regards to the championship game and massive betting figures, paying special attention to how the biggest betting day in the country was covered in media.

There is no bigger day in sports wagering than the super bowl. Year after year we see pros and average joes line up to take a crack at the big game against the spread. A uniqueness that comes with the behemoth event is all the proposition bets offered. Will Trump Tweet at any point in the game? (odds on yes vs. no) Over or under 2:04 on Demi Lavato’s rendition of the National Anthem? Or, what color Gatorade will be poured on the winning coaches head? As you can see the books are open for business from every angle and are glad to take the action.

Taking a look at Yahoo staff writer Frank Schwab’s article titled Super Bowl LIV Betting Recap: Cheifs Comeback, Under Were Enormous Wins For Sportsbooks, we learned that the championship day was a big win for sportsbooks.  The article gives the reader a glimpse into the numbers associated with the betting handle. Schwab tells us that per the Nevada Gaming Control Board “the hold for the Super Bowl for all casinos was 12.1 percent, a huge win. Stoneback said it was MGM’s best win percentage since at least 2008.” Additionally, we learn that $154,679,241 was bet on the super bowl. The overall win for Nevada casinos came in at $18,774,148.

Schwab does a great job of recapping the big event. He gives the reader some insight into how to open up the game the books were in the hole as Kansas City quarterback Patrick Mahomes scored the first touchdown of the game by running it in himself. The odds of that happening were 21-1, meaning a $100 dollar bet would have yielded a $2,100 win. Plenty of bettors had a winner righ off the bat. However, the big money came in on San Francisco and over the game total of 54. Well, the game stayed under 54 points equaling a massive win for the books.

Though the figures were reported accurately, Schwab could have improved this betting recap by expanding beyond Nevada and MGM. With sports wagering spreading as a new national market, I would have liked to see some coverage on other markets. How did Atlantic City do? The Fanduel sportsbook at the meadowlands? Iowa as a new legal state, Oregon, or even the river boats of Mississippi?

Nevada’s figures are readily available and seasoned staff writers should avoid getting comfortable and relying on where there sources were last season. There should be attention to where new markets are and how they faired. If I was reading the Las Vegas Review Journal I would expect only local figures and any national coverage would be a bonus. However, when Yahoo, who is new to sports gambling content coverage, does a recap as a reader I expected more than just Nevada’s figures.

Consequently, we do get a good sense of just how the action stacked up financially and a big winning day for Nevada more than likely indicates the same for other markets. However, we are left to speculate or dig deeper perhaps looking for regional coverage congruent with your specific region of interest. With sports wagering in it’s infancy stage nation wide, as journalist, bloggers, or even informed readers, we must ensure that we now include all the new players in this game of cat and mouse.

Francisco Healy

.

For this blog, I focused on this Wired story where 2020 Democratic presidential candidates answered a question about the current political division in America.

First, the story was based on a number of sources, but all were presidential candidates who had a clear agenda they were trying to push. These sources are not ones I would necessarily consider “credible” because they have an obvious bias and are trying to get elected president, which is not an easy task.

Additionally, there wasn’t a single hyperlink to another news source or article in the entire story, which to me is relatively concerning. At The State Press, where I work as managing editor, we require at least five (typically more) hyperlinks per story because it improves our credibility and helps gain reader’s trust. This lack of those sources made me feel less confident in what the candidates were claiming about how to fix political division.

To address the reporter, I generally feel that transcriptions of candidates or political figures are not well-reported stories. Not necessarily that hearing from political candidates isn’t important, but more so that it gives them a platform without any criticism or feedback from professionals in the field. This story was also filed by “Wired Staff,” and stories without an actual byline make me skeptical.

Also, I have a problem with only asking one question without follow-ups. How can a journalist truly be doing their job when they only ask one question. I understand that it’s hard to get in touch with political candidates, but allowing them to only answer one, pre-written, question lets candidates get away with not having to deal with real journalism

I would give this story a C+, because it is truly very average. While it may have high-profile people answering a question about political division, it is not a fully reported or well-sourced story, which I have problems with. I assume the staff allowed written comments for this story, and I truly believe for a story to be well or fully reported it needs live interviews or, at the very least, a phone call.

If you are familiar with the sports world then you have probably heard the rumors swirling above the Cubs and the fate of their third baseman Kris Bryant. Bryant, former MLB Rookie of the Year and National League MVP, has been a shining star for the Chicago Cubs since 2015. Cubs fans have been dazzled by Bryant for the last 5 years and with trade rumors around every corner these fans now want answers.

One of David Ross’ biggest issues to face yet after becoming the new manager is flaming the fire that has started from the Bryan trade rumors. Between the issue of Bryant wanting to test free agency, filing a grievance against the cubs, the fans do not know who to turn to for answers.

I came across an article from sportswriter Jeff Arnold who writes for Sportsmoney, a part of the Forbes website. This article was written before Bryant lost his grievance, which now means he is not eligible for free agency until 2021 and is one of the biggest stories that new manager David Ross has had to deal with. Even though we now know at least some sort of answer with Bryant’s future, I still wanted to share, and analyze this article.

In this article, titled “David Ross Expects Kris Bryant To Be Part Of Cubs’ Opening Day Lineup”, Arnold uses direct quotes from Ross to reassure Cubs fans that Bryant is not going anywhere. Direct quotes from the source itself is what I look for in sports related articles to build upon the credibility of the article. Arnold himself is an award-winning writer who has covered many major events within the Chicago sports scene and beyond. He has written for the NCAA March Madness tournament, the Stanley Cup, the Super Bowl, and more. This is also a nod to credibility, someone who has covered other major events in sports should be trusted with this news as well.

This article also uses sources in the form of various reporters that the team has talked to. They are not named within the article which causes it to lose some credibility in my eyes. I came across this piece after looking under the news tab on Google. I had not read much from Forbes when it comes to sports topics, but after looking through the tabs I can see it being a new source of information in the future.

While it is filled with valuable information, this analysis does not contain any separate links or other forms of media that can lead a reader to another source to future deepen their knowledge over the topic. While it is not crucial to the piece, I do feel like it could use a video or even an image of the players and David Ross talking to the reporters, that way us readers know the exact source that this information is coming from.

One aspect of this piece I enjoy is that it is free of any crazy biases. Yes the author throws in an opinion here or there, but it is not enough to make this an anti David Ross or anti Kris Bryant article. Arnold does a good job of cluing fans in on what exactly is happening with the situation, and how Ross feels about it. He also uses some persuasive tactics to make the fans believe that Ross is correct and that Bryant will be a part of the opening day lineup. He does this by mentioning that Bryant was a part of the annual Cubs Convention and will still talk and meet with fans. The author also uses his best friend and teammate Anthony Rizzo when asked about the subject. While the tactics are not as presentable as others, as an avid fan myself I can see that the author is trying to persuade you to think everything is going to be okay by mentioning the convention and using quotes from Rizzo.

If I had to give out a letter grade to this article it would be a C+. It looses points with the lack of credited sources and other forms of media. I would have preferred to see names of the reporters mentioned and where the teammates were when they were interviewed. Also,  if a video of David Ross was included or a video that quickly debriefs the subject at hand the reader would have an easier time fully understanding the subject. With those included I do think we are looking at a B+. I also took into account that the article was found on the Forbes website and not a more sport central website like ESPN or MLB.

As stated in my last blog post, Doctor Who created history by casting a black woman as the doctor. It’s wonderful that this very white show is creating some diversity, but there is backlash to this casting decision. Which is exactly what the article “Doctor Who: Fan reaction to first black Time Lord exposes Britain’s deep divisions on race and gender” written by Alec Charles. 

This article was fairly well written, and on the surface, seems legit. However, a lot of articles seem okay on the surface, so with this article I am going to do a little bit of digging and analyzing of it. 

The first thing I check is the author. What else has he written? What are his credentials? Immediately looking at the article, it shows that Alec Charles, the author, is a Dean of Arts at a university. So right away I trust this author. However, I want to know more about him in order to truly know he is qualified. A quick look on his profile on The Conversation website shows me lists all his accomplishments, and lets me know he is qualified to be writing on this subject.

After checking the credentials of the author, I check the credentials of the news site itself, The Conversation. Just by a quick Google search, I can see that this site is very trustworthy, and almost never biased. I check out a few other articles, just to be sure, especially since I have never heard of this site before. Luckily, everything checks out. 

So now that I know the author is credible to be writing on this subject, I move to analyzing the actual content of the article. Before even reading it, I can see a lot of outside sources are linked within the article, which is a good sign. 

As I am reading the article, these links add a ton to what is already written. What Charles adds proves what he is saying. He links to fan forums and personal pages, all which show the divisions on race and gender. Including these links is really well done in this article. All the links work and add something to the article, they are not just there for show. This improves the overall quality of the article. 

After checking out the links and sources to the article, I check to make sure there is not any bias within the article. Reading through it, it seems that there may be a slight bias in the article. However, not enough to make it untrustworthy. Especially when the title of the article itself shows some bias. 

The entire premise of the article is the backlash of BBC casting a black actress on Doctor Who, so a little bit of bias shows through. However, it is not much. It is mostly facts and examples of said backlash. The author tries his best to not give his input. 

Image credit: BBC

If I had to grade this article, I truly believe it deserves an A. The author is highly qualified and credible, and it is written on a credible site. It has sources embedded into the article, which make fact checking easy, and there is little bias within the article. It was a high quality article.

Analyzing a Nerd Wallet article for credibility

This week I am analyzing the article 8 African American Financial Gurus to Follow in 2020 for credibility.

The article was published by Nerd Wallet on February 5^th. It’s unique because few articles cover financial literacies for minorities from an educational perspective. Most media on this topic is written about minorities, not for them.

Let’s first take a look at the credibility of Nerd Wallet, the platform this article is published on.

Nerd Wallet claims to provide objective expert advice to help their audience make smart financial decisions. They offer some transparency about the products and services they recommend on their About Us page:

“In some cases, we receive compensation when someone clicks to apply or gets approved for a financial product through our site. However, this in no way affects our recommendations or advice. We’re committed to helping you make your smartest money move.”

At the top of every article, readers can click to read their Advertiser Disclosure and view a full list of partners. Readers can easily locate information about security and their privacy policy on the website.

Another positive feature of this website is that they provide easily accessible information about their executive team, the board of directors, advisors, and investors on their Leadership page. You can easily identify who is behind the company and discover more about them.

The authors of this article are Laura McMullen and Amrita Jayakumar. Their bios are included at the end of the article and readers can click through to their author pages to find that both are qualified in journalism and focus their writings on finance. Contact information for both authors is provided.

Based on this information and the topic of the article I would trust that the authors did their background research and selected credible gurus. The intent of the article is to connect readers with African-American financial experts who would add value to their audience.

The authors asked the gurus one of the following questions:

1. 1. What are your financial goals for 2020?
   2. What was your financial situation 10 years ago, and how does it compare to now? What did you learn in that time?
   3. What is one aspect of personal finance you wish people would pay more attention to?

The questions do not appear to be loaded with an agenda, but within the article itself, the authors chose to only link to other Nerd Wallet posts. An “About the gurus” section provides website and twitter links for each featured expert. I do not see that any products or services are being directly promoted within the article.

Overall Credibility Grade: A-

I think it serves as a great point to connect readers with experts who provide financial literacy education for minorities and beyond and allows people to share their personal experiences, potentially expanding perspective for readers. However, it is a bit self-serving in that it does not link to other sources and the contact information of those featured is withheld until the end of the article.

The news article, “Cosmetics Tested on Animals Banned in Three States by ProCon,” is a detailed news article stating the facts about banning animal testing in California, New York, and Nevada. These three states will no longer allow the import or sale of cosmetics tested on animals as of the first of this year.  The article provides detailed information about each state’s previous animal rights laws along with who signed the bills, sections, and the dates that they were signed.

“bali-000087” by suvarn is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The article is based on numerous sources and lists the 17 sources at the end of the story. I followed up on every statement and quote in the story referencing the source information, and everything was correct. The sources that were listed allowed for fact-checking, which created trust in ProCon because of their transparency.

It was frustrating to have to physically search for each source individually while reading the article as I would have preferred to have a direct link to each one within the article.  Instead of providing links to each source, the report only provided links to 3 additional articles.  The articles were all by ProCon.  The titles of the pieces were, Should Animals be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing,  Number of Animals Used for Testing, by Species, and Pro & Con Quotes: Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?

The sources were credible in regards to the facts stated as the California laws in the article were both referenced from the California Legislative Information site. The New York laws were sourced from Find Law for Legal Professionals. The Illinois general assembly site was referenced for the Illinois laws, and the Nevada laws were referenced on the Nevada Legislature site. I was able to reference the quotes using the sources available as well by searching the PETA website, the FDA website, and ProCons link to direct quotes.

“Happier Day” by MTSOfan is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The creator of the story, The ProCon Organization, was founded on July 12, 2004. Per the ProCon.org website, they are the country’s leading source for pro, con, and related research on controversial issues.  The mission statement at ProCon.org is: “Promoting critical thinking, education, and informed citizenship by presenting controversial issues in a straightforward, nonpartisan, and primarily pro-con format.” Mediabiasfactcheck.com says, “Overall, we rate ProCon least biased based on presenting both sides of issues with minimal bias. We also rank them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record. A factual search reveals they have never failed a fact check.”

ProCon does not give their opinion or show bias in this article and clearly states the facts about the laws.  They make it clear at the end of the article that the FDA said last year that animal research is still necessary for many areas. While animal testing is not specifically required for cosmetics, the FDA says it advises manufacturers “to employ whatever testing is appropriate and effective for substantiating the safety of their products.”

I decided to give this story an A.  I would have given this story an A+ if they had included direct links to all of their sources in the article.  I must say that it was very nice to have every source listed at the end of the story, as I was able to research and verify all of the direct quotes and statements made.

“Ringo face” by Cowgirl Jules is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0