EDITOR’S NOTE
Across the U.S., several states have put trans rights up for a vote — not dissimilar to how measures like 2008’s Proposition 8 in California sought to limit gay marriage.
A new podcast looks back even further, to 1992 and the amendment that gave Colorado a moniker of the “Hate State.” As co-producer Xandra MacMahon put it, the anti-gay organizing in the ‘90s bears similar resemblances to anti-trans organizing today: “Different slogans, same playbook,” she said.
This week in The Objective, I covered the podcast and what it can teach reporters about covering how anti-trans rhetoric, backlash, and policy spreads. Also in this newsletter: A Q&A with historian Assal Rad about how “impartial” media make partial decisions on Palestine coverage.
In solidarity,
James Salanga
Editorial Director
The Objective
THIS WEEK’S LEAD STORY
What the 'Hate State’ can teach journalists about covering, understanding anti-trans ballot measures
“Part of our real frustration and desire of wanting to do this [podcast] series in the first place is just seeing newsrooms sort of mess up on basic journalistic best practices just because the story is about trans people,” Hate State co-producer Ann Marie Awad said. “It's like, ‘Just because the story is about trans people, we don't have to go talk to actual trans people.’”
Bluesky
LinkedIn
XMORE FROM THE OBJECTIVE
Q&A: The media’s missing context on Palestine
Mainstream news reporting on Palestine has often failed to contextualize its history even before the genocide on Gaza began — from the language newsrooms have used when reporting on violence in Palestine to the suppression of reporting from Palestinian journalists, who have faced Israel’s decades-long targeting.
To historian and Center for Media Integrity researcher Assal Rad, examining narrative framing begins with headlines. The Objective sat down with her to talk about her newest book, Don’t Say Palestine: How the Media Manufactured Consent for Genocide, and more.
JOURNALISM IN A GRAF
If a news site’s going to make a decision to take down something, I think, number one, transparency demands that they share with their readers why they’re doing it.
I thought this quote provided some much-needed perspective to Jezebel unpublishing articles. Feminist media needs not just a loud voice in the room, but a loud voice we can trust and build community around. In an age when feminist media is being eroded, why erode trust in the product as well?
—Marlee Baldridge, production assistant at The Objective
VIEWS FROM ELSEWHERE
What we’re reading and thinking about
Rest of World, the tech news site that focused on global stories of how technology affected a global population, needs to find a new home before January. Founder Sophie Schmidt, who is also the primary backer, is looking to wind down operations due to the withdrawal of traffic, or find a new home for the publication.
In a landscape of U.S.-centric tech reporting, Rest of World reminded us that the technology in our palms or over our heads — often physically made in the Global South and paid for by sparing wages — didn’t only affect us.
As of March 2026, the New York Times employs 2,300 journalists. It’s the standard by which a lot of people determine what is news, and so The Objective has consistently had a critical eye on its editorial judgement knowing many young journalists have once dreamed of writing for the paper of record. Yet in the midst of two ongoing boycotts over its coverage of Palestine and trans people, the Times paper continues to build on its record of lifting stories from other papers without attribution — bad form for any publisher.
Jezebel removed — and then readded — over 100 articles from its website, outraging former staff [Gift link]
Former staffers (and authors) say the removal was because articles featured suggestive language or curse words in the titles — but it might have also been the blog’s abortion coverage. William Sagan, publisher of Paste Magazine, bought Jezebel in 2023 and said no articles were targeted for a particular reason. Though the pieces were restored after the Post reported on their disappearance, Stephanie Williams at La Fronde pointed out that the stated reasons for removal — fact errors and grammar mistakes — weren’t borne out by the Wayback Machine.
Share this issue
Bluesky · LinkedIn · X · Issue link
JOIN US
Help us hold journalism accountable.
Your support funds independent reporting on power, inequity, and the media — and helps keep The Objective’s journalism free to read.
FROM OUR READERS
After our featured analysis last week, we heard back from a reader who wanted to share a new resource for journalists from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding: The Countering Islamophobia toolkit, which has a specific section for journalists as well as a lengthy definition and history of Islamophobia and our most current data on how it operates in the U.S.
Thanks for your feedback on the newsletter format last week! If you have any more thoughts on what would make the next issue more useful, hit reply and let us know.
—James Salanga