Editor’s note: Editor’s note: A version of this article first appeared in the Trusted Sources newsletter. Subscribe here for a daily digest documenting the evolving media landscape.
CNN
—
News organizations rarely see their reporting publicly questioned by their parent companies. But it was precisely that rare and embarrassing investigation that German publishing giant Axel Springer covered in American financial media outlet Business Insider.
The uproar comes after Business Insider criticized billionaire Bill Ackman for publishing two articles last week alleging that his wife, former Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Neri Oxman, plagiarized portions of her work. I woke up. This surprising fact came to light after Ackman helped spearhead the movement to oust Claudine Gay as president of Harvard University. Ackman relentlessly pressured Harvard to expel Gay, first criticizing the university’s response to anti-Semitism and then criticizing her plagiarism, the latter of which ultimately led to her expulsion. (No one understood the obvious meaning of hypocrisy.)
Following Business Insider’s report, Oxman himself apologized and acknowledged that he had made several “mistakes” in his work. But the report infuriated Ackman. Mr. Ackman has argued extensively on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, that his wife should be exempt from criticism related to her activities.
Axel Springer will take the unusual and unusual step of forcing a digital publication to “review” its work, rather than stand by its publications in the face of a barrage of criticism, it said on Sunday. It was announced on . The outlet’s coverage appeared to be healthy.
A spokesperson for Axel Springer said in a statement: “While the facts of the report are not in dispute, questions have arisen over the past few days about the motives and process that led to the report, and we take these questions very seriously. “I accept that.” . “While our media brands operate independently, all Axel Springer publications are committed to journalism that meets rigorous editorial standards and processes.”
On Monday, I asked what prompted the reconsideration and whether it had anything to do with Mr. Ackman’s indication that he might reach out to KKR, the investment giant and Axel Springer’s largest shareholder. When asked, the German publisher categorically denied the claim. Its chief spokesperson, Adib al-Sisani, told CNN: “It is clear that this review has nothing to do with anyone who contacted KKR.” They were not involved in the decision to conduct the review. ” Sisani declined to discuss the content of the review, adding only that “it will not take very long.”
No matter how long it takes or what the specific impact is, the existence of the review is disturbing to staff in Business Insider’s newsroom, according to employees CNN spoke to. , journalists have expressed concern that the German parent company is reconsidering its reporting. Monday. The Insiders Union also released a statement, saying it was “disappointed to see Axel Springer publicly questioning the integrity of journalists.”
Business Insider staffers are concerned that such an overhaul could set a precedent, especially for a hard-hitting news organization known for its aggressive coverage of the rich and powerful. As one Business Insider staffer put it, journalists are upset about the “chilling effect” Axel Springer’s actions could have on the organization.
“We are very concerned,” added the staffer, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press about the matter.
Another staff member said: “We hope that this matter will be resolved as soon as possible, as Mr. Axel has been very reliable in the past about refraining from reporting.” “If this continues, it will set a very scary precedent that will make investigative reporting even more difficult.”
Business Insider’s global editor-in-chief, Nicholas Carlson, sent a memo to staff supporting the magazine’s reporting. Carlson said he made the call to publish the pair of articles, saying he knows “our process is sound” and motivated by “truth and accountability.”
“My colleagues at Axel Springer have asked us to investigate the process leading up to publication of the article to ensure that it meets our standards,” Carlson wrote. “I stand proudly in our newsroom and welcome any kind of review of our work, as I believe it will reassure my colleagues, readers and other stakeholders.”
Whether or not Carlson actually welcomes this review, as Bill Gruskin, distinguished professor of professional practice at Columbia Journalism School, said on Monday, this is extremely outrageous. This is what I did. “I don’t recall any news media announcing such a review,” Gruskin said.
“It’s not unusual for us to say we’re going to review a story when its accuracy is being questioned,” Gruskin explained. “But Axel Springer, while vouching for the story’s veracity, seems concerned about its validity.”
“At the very least, it makes more sense to conduct the investigation privately and, when warranted, to make its findings and conclusions public,” Gruskin added, saying he had no problem with reporting on Oxman’s plagiarism. . “However, announcing the review in advance appears to be just a tactic to appease Bill Ackman, who has made it clear that he will not be satisfied until he gets an apology, and based on the evidence so far, he does not deserve an apology. It’s not worth it.”
