It’s been a heavy news week as the flurry of executive orders and decisions from the Trump administration continues. This week’s top story deals with the attention legacy media has paid — or rather, lack thereof — to one such executive order taking aim at gender-affirming care for people 19 and under.

There is some good news, though — thanks for helping The Objective raise over $16,600 during our year-end fundraiser! My co-director Gabe and I wrote up an overview of what that money means for our newsroom, which you can read below. Stickers and posters will be headed out to new supporters next month.

And a positive update: A couple weeks ago in our newsletter, you might remember reading a Prism story in our “A bit more media section” about movement journalist Alissa Azar, who was facing trial after being arrested and charged with trespassing while covering a Palestine solidarity protest last year. Azar’s case, scheduled for Jan. 27, was dismissed after the article’s publication.

In this issue:

And also: The Federal Communications Commission chair orders investigation into PBS and NPR stations, what a conservative National Labor Relations Board means for the future of news unions, Washington state legislation looking to support local news, and New York Magazine union workers gear up for a walk-out. Plus, the resource of the week is another installment of Beatrice Forman’s pro-democracy reporting column — a short Q&A with Colleen Hagerty, the writer of disaster journalism newsletter “My World’s on Fire.”

—James Salanga

On Tuesday, when Donald Trump signed an executive order attempting to end gender-affirming care for anyone under the age of 19, writer Parker Molloy noticed something.

Despite the New York Times and the Washington Post sending a bevy of push alerts to notify readers of the flurry of other White House news, they failed to do so for the transphobic executive order For The Objective, Molloy connects the dots between anti-trans coverage at mainstream newsrooms like the Times — arguably the most egregious offender — and the current push to strip away trans healthcare and rights. Here’s part of her piece:

“When Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday attempting to end gender-affirming care for anyone under the age of 19, encourage the prosecution of doctors who provide this care, and strip insurance coverage from trans people, neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post thought this development warranted a push notification to their readers. This is a clear illustration of how leadership at these outlets’ view of attacks on trans rights: they’re standard political developments rather than acts of state-sponsored discrimination targeting a vulnerable minority. The lack of push notifications might seem like a small thing, but it speaks to these newsrooms’ failure to recognize the gravity of this moment — one that stems directly from these outlets’ inability to see their own role in making it possible.

The Times‘ coverage, in particular, demonstrates the paper’s refusal to take accountability for its role in seeding anti-trans sentiment.

For years, the newsroom has published article after article casting doubt on gender-affirming care, portraying trans healthcare as “controversial” despite overwhelming medical consensus supporting it, and giving ample space to anti-trans activists while rarely quoting trans people themselves. All the while, anti-trans opinion columnists at the paper, such as Pamela Paul, have churned out piece after piece delegitimizing and demeaning trans existence. Tuesday’s coverage continued this pattern — in reporting on an executive order directly impacting trans Americans, the Times didn’t quote a single trans person.

This isn’t an accident or oversight. It’s part of a consistent pattern at the paper that reflects an editorial choice — with material harm given the Times’ role as the U.S. paper of record. As documented in The Flaw’s 2024 investigation of media coverage, the Times‘ reporting has repeatedly been cited by lawmakers and used in legal briefs to justify anti-trans legislation across the country. The paper’s consistent framing of gender-affirming care as “controversial” and “dangerous,” rather than as standard medical care supported by every major medical association, provides intellectual cover for the sweeping restrictions Trump is now attempting to implement nationwide.”

Read Parker’s full commentary on our website.

—James Salanga

—————

Our year-end fundraiser recap and looking ahead to 2025 with The Objective. Read more.

Federal Communications Commission chair orders investigation into NPR and PBS stations: CEOs at both NPR and PBS rejected the claim that the public broadcasters had violated federal laws or practices that stretch back decades. The investigation was ordered on the claim that NPR and PBS stations’ underwriting veered into “prohibited commercial announcements.” It falls in line with an aim expressed in Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 document: unraveling federal funding for all public broadcasting.

📻 Read the story in NPR.

What would a conservative National Labor Relations Board mean for news unions? Journalism’s labor leaders say newsroom unions will likely face even longer processing times for union petitions and labor violation claims. Plus, the news industry should expect more frequent and drawn out strikes, as employees may opt for collective action over trusting or waiting for the government to intervene on their behalf.

✊ Read the story in Nieman Lab.

A new legislative effort to support Washington state’s local journalism: The bipartisan Senate Bill 5400 would raise a business tax surcharge on large software companies that’s used for workforce training and education. Ultimately, at least $20 million a year would be raised for a state-administered journalism grant program offering $10,000 to $15,000 per journalist. Legislators said they hope to support local journalism across different business models.

🏛️ Read the story in The Seattle Times.

New York Magazine union members prepare to walk out: A majority — 97% — of union members signed a pledge to walk out of work if Vox Media doesn’t offer a fair contract. They’re currently asking readers to sign a pledge not to cross the digital picket line during any potential work stoppage. The union has been negotiating with Vox Media since last March over bargaining sticking points including wage increases, healthcare costs, and protections around AI in the workplace.

📑 Read the thread on Bluesky.

This week’s resource is … a Q&A with Colleen Hagerty, who writes “My World’s on Fire”.

Maybe it’s just me, but January has just felt like one big prolonged crisis.

Over 37,000 acres of Los Angeles land have been burned since the Palisades and Eaton fires started raging on Jan. 7, displacing thousands of people and razing whole communities. Then, President Donald Trump issued — and rescinded — a sweeping federal funding freeze meant to drain programs focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion, abortion, and climate change from the budget. Medicaid portals were briefly inaccessible in all 50 states. Food banks feared shutdown. Job offers were rescinded, medical research was thrown into flux, and homeless shelters were baited-and-switched into thinking they had already lost funding.

This deluge can be dizzying. How can you focus on the big picture when stuff just keeps happening? Concepts like democracy and accountability can feel tertiary when the information people need right now — like whether they have healthcare or a place to stay — is about day-to-day survival.

All that to say, we’re living in the era of Big Disaster. Colleen Hagerty, a freelance journalist who balances a weekly newsletter with covering hazards like the Los Angeles fires and Hurricane Helene, says accountability coverage can be two-fold: “about promises being made in these really early days and if people will follow through with them, as well as … how much money is actually making it to communities on the ground.”

I spoke with her about what reporters interested in expanding their pro-democracy coverage can learn from those who have already been on the disaster beat, and how the two overlap.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Beatrice Forman: First and foremost, how do you define pro-democracy journalism?

Colleen Hagerty: Pro-democracy journalism is about finding ways to get information about basic systems and structures and operations of our government to everyone. It’s about creating [civic] literacy … and empowering people to know how decisions are being made.

Disaster journalism is part of pro-democracy journalism. So many facets of not just disaster recovery, but how disasters impact us, are shaped by political decisions. I don't just mean FEMA — I’m talking about urban planning, where people are able to buy homes, who is able to get their gutters cleaned out. All of these decisions impact how people feel [during] a hazard.

BF: During large scale disasters, how do you do an information needs assessment to determine what you should cover?

CH: First, I try to look at if this is an area where this is a local news infrastructure — are people getting that basic level information … of “where is shelter?” “Where can I get food?” I try to see where people feel like they are hitting roadblocks of information and direct my attention to doing either explainers there or larger stories [on those topics]. I really try to be dictated by the gaps that I'm seeing that are impacting people's ability to understand how they can take steps for their own safety.

BF: How do you deal with the dichotomy that sometimes arises between what we, as journalists and experts, think people need to know versus what they actually want to know?

CH: One example this brings up for me is as I was talking to people [about the LA fires] a lot of would say, “This home on my block survived, so when I rebuild, I'm going to get the wood that they used.” There are so many articles out right now about miracle homes.

All of the researchers I was speaking to were saying, “This is not the best way to approach that question, because just from looking at a home, you don't know if a firefighter was guarding it or all these other factors.” So I wrote an article in response to these conversations I was hearing, bringing in researchers who could take that step back and say, “Actually, when you're thinking about rebuilding, you have to think more holistically.”

I try to hear the root of the concern that people are asking, and then see how I can best address that … I certainly don’t want to say their questions are wrong, because they’re valid. It's what they want to know, and I want to make sure that I get to that end point with them. But sometimes I feel like I have to take a bit of a journey to get there.

BF: What can political reporters and local government accountability reporters learn from disaster journalists?

CA: A big focus of disaster reporting, especially in the early phases, is making sure that community members’ voices are heard. That's really important, and can get lost sometimes in political reporting when you are just saying, ‘Here's what the politicians are saying’ or like, ‘Here's this legislation that's being passed.’ It's so important to ground these higher-level policies and decisions in the actual real lives of people who are reading the outlet.

With the LA fires, there’s around $250 billion of damage. That’s so hard to imagine, right? But it’s a lot easier when you can see the impact on one person’s life and all of the ways that this cascades throughout the next five, 10 years of their life as the costs pile up.

—Beatrice Forman, Democracy Journalism Columnist

For more style guides, journalism job boards, and tip sheets, check out The Objective’s resource list.

Thanks for reading. We appreciate you being here, and we’ll have more for you next week.

— 30 —