New York Times’ Ben Smith Talks Slack, Newsroom Politics, And Tech Regulation

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: Alex Kantrowitz and Ben Smith discuss newsroom culture, the effects of Twitter and Slack on journalism, internal revolts over race and ideology, audience fragmentation, and the political pressures shaping tech regulation. Smith argues the media world is splintering, platforms are amplifying existing tensions, and regulators are likely to impose more oversight on powerful tech companies.

Main Topics: BuzzFeed origins and newsroom culture (Priority: 5/5): The conversation opens with a personal recollection of Kantrowitz’s hiring at BuzzFeed and Smith’s approach to building an unconventional newsroom that valued people from nontraditional backgrounds and fostered a raw, startup-like culture. Twitter, Slack, and newsroom conformity (Priority: 5/5): They debate how Twitter and Slack improve reporting speed and sourcing but can also intensify peer pressure, conformity, and groupthink inside newsrooms, potentially narrowing the range of ideas. Internal revolts and newsroom diversity (Priority: 5/5): Smith reflects on the current wave of newsroom organizing and racial reckoning, arguing that more diverse staffs will naturally produce wider ranges of opinion and that old bargains asking Black journalists to stay quiet on race are breaking down. Audience trust and media fragmentation (Priority: 4/5): The discussion turns to declining trust among Republicans, the role of Trump’s attacks on the press, and the broader splintering of the media ecosystem into subscription-based niches and alternative outlets. Platform moderation and distribution power (Priority: 4/5): They revisit the takedown of Alex Jones and the role of platform executives in shaping speech distribution, with Smith warning that speech-regulation powers created at the platform level can easily migrate to government use. Antitrust, regulation, and political use of tech policy (Priority: 5/5): Smith argues that regulating powerful tech firms is normal and necessary, but warns that the Trump administration is using antitrust and platform pressure as political tools rather than neutral policy. The future of journalism and political coverage (Priority: 3/5): Both conclude that the immediate future is dominated by the election and the Trump coronavirus story, with little space for other narratives in the short term.

Key Arguments: Twitter is an unusually fast and effective public square, but it also intensifies conformity and peer pressure in journalism, making it harder for reporters to stray from the pack. Slack can reproduce the tone of Twitter inside organizations, and large newsroom channels blur the line between public and private conversation. Brutal internal politics in newsrooms did not begin with Slack; technology accelerates and exposes existing tensions rather than creating them from scratch. The current newsroom upheaval is partly a racial reckoning: many Black journalists are rejecting older expectations that they mute criticism of racism to preserve institutional harmony. There is no single journalistic value system, and different reporters and institutions play different roles; trying to enforce one orthodox model is misguided. The media market is fragmenting, not recentralizing; major institutions are growing but still reach only a small share of Americans through subscription models. Platform regulation is likely inevitable because societies eventually impose frameworks on powerful institutions that affect the public interest. Political actors, especially the Trump administration, are using antitrust and regulatory pressure on tech firms as a blunt tool to punish enemies and aid allies. The platforms’ decisions to remove figures like Alex Jones show that seemingly independent moderation choices can quickly cascade across companies under pressure. The dominant immediate news story is the election and the Trump coronavirus diagnosis, leaving little room for other coverage in the near term.

Data Points: Republicans distrusting election coverage at The New York Times: 42% - Mentioned as an example of low trust in mainstream journalism among Republicans. Republicans distrusting The Washington Post: 39% - Used to illustrate the broader trust gap between conservative audiences and major news outlets. New York Times subscriber goal: 10 million subscribers - Smith cites this as the Times’ ambitious target, equivalent to about one in 30 Americans. Times audience share implied by subscriber goal: 1 in 30 Americans - Illustrates how even a dominant publication still reaches only a small portion of the country. Number of people in a Slack channel: 2000 - Smith references huge Times Slack channels to show how unwieldy internal communication can become. Likely media reach target: 1% to 4% of Americans - Smith suggests major publications would view even a few percent of the U.S. population subscribing as a major triumph.

Pivotal Quotes: "Twitter is the most incredible, fast, effective, centralized public square there has ever been in the history of the world, like, by far." — Ben Smith: Smith explains why Twitter is invaluable to journalists while also creating pressure for conformity. "Brutal internal politics did not arrive with Slack, right? New York Times has had brutal internal politics for a long time." — Ben Smith: Smith argues that technology accelerates internal conflict but is not the root cause of newsroom tensions. "The only normal outcome is some kind of regulatory or legislative framework." — Ben Smith: Smith describes tech regulation as the expected response to powerful platforms that shape public life.

Implications: The episode suggests journalism is becoming more fragmented, more internally contested, and more exposed to platform dynamics. Expect continued newsroom culture battles, rising regulatory pressure on tech, and a media landscape where major institutions reach fewer people but wield more influence within their niches.