[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on Feb. 15, 2013.] A well-funded apology: Six months after he was caught fabricating material and resigned from The New Yorker, disgraced science writer Jonah Lehrer gave his first public apology this week in the form of a speech at a Knight Foundation seminar. You can see the full text of the speech here, and Poynter's Andrew Beaujon summarized the scenario well: Lehrer acknowledged his fabrication and plagiarism, apologized, and explained how he's going to try to rectify the problem in the future. That only served to make his detractors (which is, right now, everyone) even angrier. Several critics were incredulous at Lehrer's assertion that a series of procedural safeguards would be enough to keep him from fabricating again. Forbes' Jeff Bercovici called them "the methods of the technocrat, not the ethicist," and Slate's Daniel Engber said a set of procedures can't solve Lehrer's staggering arrogance. Poynter's Craig Silverman delivered this point most forcefully, arguing that his plan is built to stop unintentional error, not the deliberate deception that Lehrer won't come to grips with. "Until Lehrer is willing to face himself without props and aids, he’ll continue the pattern of self-deception and public deceit," he wrote. Others had different concerns: Psychology professor Christopher Chabris said Lehrer's fabrication was tied to his fundamental misunderstanding of science. Wired's David Dobbs asked why he hasn't apologized to his colleagues, friends, and editors, while NYU grad student Rachel Feltman chastised Lehrer for tarnishing journalism's (and especially science journalism's) public perception. British journalist Kevin Anderson spoke for many of his colleagues when he said Lehrer deserves to never work in journalism again. After the talk, one key detail emerged that intensified the anger against both Lehrer and Knight: The foundation paid Lehrer $20,000 to give the talk. Said Forbes' John McQuaid, "Before today, I didn’t think you could prostitute a 'I throw myself on the mercy of the court of public opinion' statement. I was wrong." Amy Wallace of Los Angeles magazine wondered how Lehrer's friends and advisors let him think taking money for a speech like this was a good idea. Taylor Dobbs of Scientific American (among others) challenged Lehrer to donate the pay, and Lehrer wouldn't comment to Forbes' Jeff Bercovici when asked about whether he would do so. Of course, giving an admitted fabulist and plagiarist $20,000 for a 40-minute talk didn't reflect well on the Knight Foundation (full disclosure: they help fund the Lab), either. Gawker's Max Read castigated Knight for giving Lehrer the money, and the Columbia Journalism Review's Curtis Brainard said he hopes news organizations have a higher standard of professional re-admission for Lehrer than Knight did. Knight's CEO, Alberto Ibargüen, initially defended the foundation's decision to bring in and pay Lehrer to Michael Calderone of The Huffington Post and Erik Wemple of The Washington Post, but the foundation later said it regretted the decision. Patch and Nextdoor's hyperlocal strategies: AOL made news a couple of times this week — once for buying the tech reviews site gdgt, and once for a better-than-expected quarterly earnings report that sent its stock price shooting up and had paidContent's Jeff John Roberts praising its retooled ad strategy. Business Insider's Henry Blodget pointed out the bizarre ongoing source of AOL's profit: Its ostensibly antiquated dial-up business. But the aspect of AOL's report that grabbed the attention of journalism watchers was the revenue figure for its hyperlocal news project, Patch. As Forbes' Jeff Bercovici reported, Patch's approximately 900 sites brought in $34 million last year, less than AOL CEO Tim Armstrong had predicted. Armstrong attributed the shortfall partly to Hurricane Sandy and partly to an emphasis on cost-cutting as opposed to increasing ad sales. Ingrid Lunden of TechCrunch (also an AOL site) gave some more detail about AOL's plans for deeper local advertising partnerships. Entrepreneur Bernard Lunn explained why the human-powered Patch experiment is so important to cracking the hyperlocal news nut, contrasting it with the recently departed EveryBlock. At the same time, a new entrant into the hyperlocal field — Nextdoor — made a splash this week by announcing it had enlisted renowned venture capital firm Greylock Partners as an investor. As Fast Company and The New York Times explained, Nextdoor is a private (real names only) neighborhood-based social network that serves both a neighborhood watch and neighborhood Craigslist function. Mathew Ingram of GigaOM contrasted Patch and Nextdoor's approaches to community information, praising Nextdoor's high barriers to entry and its fundamentally social orientation. "Instead of starting with the news and then trying to add social-networking aspects later, Nextdoor started with the social networking side," he wrote. Drones, secrecy, and self-censorship: The debate over drone strikes came to the forefront in the U.S. late last week thanks in part to two media reports: The New York Times and Washington Post revealed the location of a U.S. drone base in Yemen, and NBC's Michael Isikoff reported on a leaked memo making a legal case for strikes against U.S. citizens. In the case of the former, the Times and Post had actually known about the base for more than a year, but had agreed to keep it secret for now. In large part, both papers received not praise for breaking the story, but criticism for waiting so long. The Guardian explored some of the arguments on both sides of the decision, quoting one j-prof who called the decision to withhold the information "shameful." The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald said this is part of a pattern of subservience and self-censorship on the part of the media: "Time and again, one finds the US media acting to help suppress the newsworthy secrets of the US government rather than report on them." In addition, the Times' own public editor, Margaret Sullivan, concluded that this case didn't clear the bar to justifying honor a government secrecy request. The Times' David Carr was more sympathetic to the media in the drone debate, arguing that it has served relatively well as a site of public discussion on the issue and that it's instead Congress that has been strangely unconcerned about the media's drone revelations. In making his case, Carr cited a new study (PDF) by Harvard's Shorenstein Center about the media's drone coverage. Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, meanwhile, said the drone news showed the value of leaks to democracy. Reading roundup: There were several other stories to watch this week: — The media conglomerate Time Warner was reported to be talking about selling much of its Time Inc. magazine division — magazines like People and InStyle, but not Time, Sports Illustrated, or Fortune — to the magazine publisher Meredith. Peter Kafka of All Things D noted that Time Warner was talking about putting its magazines up for sale last year, and Quartz's Simone Foxman looked at what might be behind the sale. — A few paywall tidbits: The currently paywall-free Washington Post is polling its users on various paywall options, The New York Times and Wall Street Journal dropped their paywalls for last week's winter storm, the Times closed one of its easiest paywall loopholes and announced good news regarding its paywall numbers, and paidContent's Mathew Ingram proposed a few ideas for building paywalls around people, rather than content. — Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism profiled four small newspapers around the country as success stories with new business-model experiments. Rick Edmonds of Poynter, Jeff Bercovici of Forbes, and Mathew Ingram of paidContent all summarized the lessons for news organizations well. — The Journalism Interactive conference on journalism education and digital media was held last weekend, and you can find tons of helpful ideas and tips from it with Florida j-prof Mindy McAdams' Storify and College Media Matters' Dan Reimold's comprehensive summary. — Finally, a few bits and pieces to check out: Breaking News' Cory Bergman argued that the next big journalistic disruption is coming from mobile media, the Lab posted a fascinating interview with outgoing New York Times assistant managing editor and new Reuters hire Jim Roberts, MSNBC's Ned Resnikoff explained how class affects who gets into journalism and what we see as a result, and Iowa Ph.D. student Dave Schwartz proposed a personalized breaking-news Twitter feed.


August 28th, 2014

This Week in Review: Twitter and press intimidation in Ferguson, and a journalist’s brutal execution

August 21st, 2014

This Week in Review: Ferguson and press freedom, and BuzzFeed’s $50 million boost

August 14th, 2014

This Week in Review: Covering war in real time, and evaluating a pair of plagiarism cases

July 31st, 2014

This Week in Review: The Fox/Time Warner dance begins, and clickbait and its discontents

July 17th, 2014

This Week in Review: Facebook and online control, and educating stronger data journalists

July 10th, 2014

This Week in Review: Questions on Facebook’s experiment, and a knockout blow to Aereo

July 2nd, 2014

This Week in Review: Time Inc. tries to survive on its own, and the global shift to mobile news

June 12th, 2014

This Week in Review: A setback for reporter privilege, and a new New York Times opinion app

June 9th, 2014

Making sense of research: Has campaign journalism changed on Twitter?

June 5th, 2014

This Week in Review: Kinsley vs. Greenwald on NSA secrets, and new data on mobile’s rise