View this email in your browser

Received this email from a friend? Subscribe here.

News organizations seldomly see their reporting publicly called into question by their parent companies. But that rare and embarrassing scrutiny is precisely what German publishing powerhouse Axel Springer has treated its financial-focused U.S. outlet, Business Insider, to.

The dust up comes as Business Insider takes fire from billionaire Bill Ackman for publishing a pair of stories last week reporting that his wife, former Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Neri Oxman, had plagiarized some of her work. The startling revelations came after Ackman helped spearhead a campaign to oust Claudine Gay as Harvard University's president. Ackman applied relentless pressure on Harvard to remove Gay, initially criticizing the academic for the school's response to anti-Semitism and then later for plagiarism, the latter of which ultimately led to her removal. (The clear implication of hypocrisy was not lost on anyone.)

Oxman herself apologized in the wake of the Business Insider reporting, acknowledging there were some "errors" in her work. But the reporting enraged Ackman, who has extensively argued on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, that his wife should be immune from criticism tied to his activism.

Instead of standing by its outlet as it faced a barrage of criticism, Axel Springer announced Sunday that it would take the extraordinary and unusual step of compelling the digital publication to conduct a "review" of its work — all while acknowledging that the veracity of the outlet's reporting appeared to be sound.

"While the facts of the reports have not been disputed, over the past few days questions have been raised about the motivation and the process leading up to the reporting — questions that we take very seriously," a spokesperson for Axel Springer said in a statement. "Our media brands operate independently, however all Axel Springer publications are committed to journalism that meets rigorous editorial standards and processes."

Asked on Monday what prompted the review and whether it had to do with Ackman signaling he might reach out to KKR, the investment giant and largest shareholder of Axel Springer, the German publishing company issued a firm denial. Adib Sisani, its chief spokesperson, told me, "Very explicitly the review has nothing to do with anyone reaching out to KKR. They were not involved in the decision to do the review." Sisani declined to say what the review will consist of, only adding that "it won't take very long."

Regardless of how long it takes or what specifically touched it off, the existence of any review has alarmed staffers inside Business Insider's newsroom, where journalists have expressed worry about the German parent company's second-guessing of its reporting, according to employees I spoke with on Monday. Insider Union also released a statement saying it is "disappointed to see Axel Springer publicly call the integrity of its journalists into question."

Staffers at Business Insider are troubled about the precedent such a review might set, particularly on a punchy newsroom known for aggressively reporting on the wealthy and powerful. As one Business Insider staffer told me, journalists are perturbed about "the chilling effect" that Axel Springer's move could have on the organization.

"There's a lot of concern," added the staffer, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press about the matter.

"In the past Axel has been quite reliable about staying out of reporting, so I hope that this is resolved ASAP," another staffer told me. "As is, it sets a pretty horrible precedent that makes investigative reporting even more difficult."

For his part, Nicholas Carlson, the global editor-in-chief of Business Insider, sent staffers a memo standing by the outlet's reporting. Carlson said he made the call to publish the pair of stories and that he knows "our process was sound" and that the motivations were "truth and accountability."

"Our colleagues at Axel Springer have asked that we look at our process leading up to publishing the story, to make sure it meets our standards," Carlson wrote. "I stand proudly by our newsroom and therefore welcome any sort of review of our work as I am confident it will put my colleagues, our readers, and other stakeholders at ease."

Whether Carlson actually welcomes the review or not, it is very much out of the ordinary, as Bill Grueskin, a renowned professor of professional practice at the Columbia Journalism School, told me on Monday. Grueskin said that he "can't remember a news organization announcing a review like this."

"It's not uncommon to say you're going to review a story when its accuracy has been challenged," Grueskin explained. "But Axel Springer seems to be both vouching for the veracity of the story and fretting about the propriety of it."

"At the least, it'd make more sense to do the investigation privately and then release the results or conclusions if they're warranted," added Grueskin, who said he didn't see an issue with reporting about Oxman's plagiarism. "But announcing the review in advance comes over as simply a tactic to placate Bill Ackman, who made it clear he won't be happy until he gets an apology — something he doesn't deserve, based on the evidence so far."

———  BELOW THE FOLD  ———

You're Not Sorry: The Gray Lady is remaining silent as it faces a torrential downpour of criticism over its decision to publish an opinion piece speculating on the sexuality of Taylor Swift. As I reported over the weekend, The NYT piece drew the ire of Swift's associates. "Because of her massive success, in this moment there is a Taylor-shaped hole in people’s ethics," one person close to the situation told me, adding, "There seems to be no boundary some journalists won’t cross when writing about Taylor, regardless of how invasive, untrue, and inappropriate it is — all under the protective veil of an 'opinion piece.'" Suffice to say, there is some bad blood. 

But it's not just Swift's associates and fans who are criticizing The NYT for the 5,000+ word piece, written by editor Anna Marks, who also penned an oddly similar article back in 2022 about Harry Styles' sexuality. Country singer Chely Wright, who was mentioned in the story, ripped the paper on Sunday evening, saying it was an "awful" decision to publish. "Triggering for me to read— not because the writer mentioned my nearly ending my life— but seeing a public person’s sexuality being discussed is upsetting," wrote Wright, who came out in 2010. Wright was joined by many others expressing frustration at The NYT. Variety's chief music critic, Chris Willman, called it the "least defensible op-ed" in recent memory, "made all the worst by the fact it was written by a staffer who specializes in these speculations." And Mashable's Anna Lovine, wrote that, as an out queer person, she believes it's "time to stop obsessing over celebrities' sexualities." 

► Notably, spokespeople for The NYT did not offer comment when asked on Monday whether Marks had sought a response from Swift or Wright ahead of publication of the sensitive piece. Spokespeople for The NYT have only pointed to what Marks wrote in the editorial, preemptively addressing criticism by acknowledging some people would believe "discussing the potential of a star’s queerness before a formal declaration of identity feels, to some, too salacious and gossip-fueled to be worthy of discussion." Of course, it is worth noting that Swift has previously said she is "not a part of" of the LGBTQ community.

Sidner Reveals Cancer Diagnosis: Looking straight into the camera on Monday, just before noon, CNN anchor Sara Sidner got personal with viewers, revealing that she has been diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer. "It's hard to say aloud," Sidner confessed. "I am in my second month of chemo treatments and will do radiation and a double mastectomy." Sidner used the segment to bring attention to the statistic that one in eight women will get breast cancer and that the odds of survival — while greatly improved — are lower for Black women. While she urged viewers to stay up to date on their mammograms, Sidner also "thanked" cancer "for choosing" her. "Just being alive feels different for me now," Sidner said. "I am happier because I don't stress about foolish little things that used to annoy me." It goes without saying that the entire CNN family is supporting Sidner in her fight. Watch Sidner's full announcement here.

► Sidner also spoke about her diagnosis with People's Kyler Alvord: "I don't put my personal stuff out there that often, but I can do something for someone because I have cancer. I can warn somebody. To all my sisters, Black, White, and brown: Please, for the love of God, do your checks yourself. ... Don't play with this, just please try to catch it before I did."

Rendezvous with Rodgers: The conspiracy curious Aaron Rodgers is set to return to Pat McAfee's controversial ESPN show on Tuesday, the first time the quarterback has appeared since attacking Disney star Jimmy Kimmel on the Disney-owned sports network. Rodgers, whose suggestion Kimmel might appear as an associate of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein drew a lawsuit threat from the comedian, has yet to address the controversy. Will he apologize on Tuesday? We'll see.

Meanwhile, McAfee has opened up a second front of controversy. On Friday, the boisterous host attacked ESPN executive Norby Williamson, accusing him of working to secretly "sabotage" his program. That attack drew a response from ESPN (which had stayed silent throughout the whole Kimmel episode), with a spokesperson saying "no one is more committed to and invested in ESPN's success" than Williamson. The spokesperson added that the matter would be handled "internally." It's unclear how that all went down, given that on Monday McAfee was back on the air and declaring, "I don't take back anything I said about said person." McAfee also continued to not-so-subtly knock Williamson, saying that "there's certainly people" at ESPN "that we don't like." CNN's Jordan Valinsky has more here.

🔎 Zooming in: McAfee is unquestionably going to continue causing ESPN embarrassing PR problems in the days, weeks, and months ahead. His recent behavior is, frankly, nothing new. For months, his show has been defined by Rodgers' anti-vaccine rhetoric, among other less-than-desirable themes. Which is to say, McAfee is not the variable in this equation. ESPN and Disney's management is. And so far, whatever Jimmy Pitaro and Bob Iger are doing behind the scenes is not working.

OpenAI Fires Back: OpenAI on Monday hit back against The NYT, accusing the Gray Lady of "not telling the full story" in its historic lawsuit against the ChatGPT-maker. OpenAI, which is building products using reporting from news outlets that will unquestionably disrupt their industry, said its "goals are to support a healthy news ecosystem, be a good partner, and create mutually beneficial opportunities." OpenAI added that while it disagreed with The NYT, the company viewed the lawsuit as "an opportunity to clarify our business, our intent, and how we build our technology." CNN's Clare Duffy has all the details here.

The Golden Ratings: The Golden Globes has turned around its ratings spiral. The 81st annual awards show averaged 9.4 million viewers, rocketing up 50% from last year and amassing its largest audience since 2020, broadcaster CBS said, citing Nielsen ratings. It's a fair bet the ratings were not a product of the standup from comedian Jo Koy, whose jokes repeatedly fell awkwardly flat. That said, the pronounced increase in viewership may have actually been a result of the presence of Taylor Swift. The pop superstar was up for an award (though she didn't win) and, thus, attended the event, which CBS made sure everyone at home knew via constant cutaways to her table throughout the night. TheWrap's Loree Seitz has more on the ratings here.

Thank you for reading! This newsletter was edited by Jon Passantino and produced with the assistance of Liam Reilly. Have feedback? Send us an email. You can follow us on Instagram, Threads, and LinkedIn. We will see you back in your inbox tomorrow.