The bodies of over 300 people were discovered in a mass grave at the Nasser medical complex in Khan Younis, a Gaza city besieged by Israeli forces. The discovery of these Palestinian bodies, many of which were reportedly bound and stripped, is more evidence of "plausible" genocide committed by Israel during its bombardment of Gaza. Over 34,000 Palestinians have died thus far, with more than two-thirds of the casualties being women and children (Al Jazeera, 4/21/24).
The Baltimore Banner, an online news outlet, broke a story in November (11/2/23) about a man’s death being ruled a homicide due to “trauma to the body.” The man, Paul Bertonazzi, had been transported by Baltimore Police to Johns Hopkins psychiatric hospital, where he died five days later. The death occurred in January 2023, but the ruling had just been determined.
The original version of the story was short on details, with information vaguely sourced to “Baltimore Police.” It described the man (initially unidentified) as “combative” and self-harming. A second article (11/3/23) on the evolving story was published the next day with more information, including that the man’s spine had been severed at some point. That article includes quotes from a police report.
Baltimore Banner (11/2/23)
Despite limited information, the Banner’s articles prematurely exonerate the police in Bertonazzi’s death, taking the police’s own account of his behavior and the officers’ actions at face value while focusing blame on the hospital.
It is perhaps not surprising that Baltimore media published a police-friendly story relying on partial and questionable information, sourced to the police themselves. As I previously wrote about for FAIR (9/22/23), the Baltimore Sun and other news outlets played a major role in perpetuating false stories about what happened to Freddie Gray by uncritically repeating Baltimore Police claims.
Yet unlike the Baltimore Sun, the Baltimore Banner is not a corporate news outlet. It is a nonprofit news outlet that was introduced in 2022 as a promised corrective to the Sun’s habits of reporting. Since its founding, the Banner has stirred up controversy on social media for actions, statements and stories that seemingly perpetuate the worst habits of its corporate news competitor, including “police say” journalism.
In the Bertonazzi case, despite a lack of evidence, the Banner repeatedly concluded that he must have been killed by violence while a patient at the hospital. The second story ended with some background on “serious events” happening in Maryland hospitals. A followup story (11/9/23) was even more emphatic: “Violence at Maryland Hospitals Was a Concern Before a Death at Hopkins Was Ruled a Homicide,” the headline stated.
At the same time, the Banner gave space for the police to seemingly implicate Bertonazzi himself and/or his pre-existing injury in his death. The second article (11/3/23) cited a police report claiming Bertonazzi “said his neck hurt,” and was “hitting his head against the inside of the van” while in the midst of a “behavioral crisis” during his arrest.
Baltimore Banner (11/3/23)
For long-time observers of the Baltimore Police Department (BPD), these claims struck a familiar chord: Police said the exact same things about Freddie Gray, who was fatally injured in BPD police custody in 2015, including that he was banging his head in the van (Washington Post, 4/29/15). This turned out to be a false story, part of an effort to cover up brutal deadly force (and not the first time BPD has used that story). The Banner articles are filled with red flags that echo back to the Gray case, including that Bertonazzi was transported to the hospital in a police van instead of an ambulance, despite reports of serious medical and psychiatric symptoms.
Any number of things could have happened to cause Bertonazzi’s fatal injury, involving any number of parties and/or his preexisting condition. The details offered by the Banner belie its rhetorical effort to shift attention away from the police and onto the hospital. According to “medical staff,” he became immediately immobile upon entry, when he was transferred from the wheelchair to a board.
The Banner (11/3/23) released partial body camera footage showing Bertonazzi crying “help” and “you’re hurting me” before he was wheeled into the hospital, while police unsuccessfully commanded him to stand up. The news outlet describes the video as showing him “moving, talking” to explain why BPD exonerated the officers, as if that alone proves that his spine wasn’t damaged yet (another echo to the Gray case, in which police dismissed video of him crying out in pain during his arrest).
The Baltimore Banner provides a case study in whether a shift to a nonprofit business model in newsrooms is enough to transform journalism. The news outlet was launched in 2022 in the midst of intensive public support for an alternative to the Baltimore Sun, which had been the only big game in town for decades.
In 2021, an investment firm, Alden Capital Group, was poised to purchase the Baltimore Sun’s owner, Tribune Publishing. A Vanity Fair article (4/5/21) about the takeover referred to Alden Capital as a “blood-sucking hedge fund.” A group called “Save Our Sun,” made up of Sun staffers and prominent locals, was hoping to beat Alden’s offer and transform the Sun into a nonprofit newspaper.
Another party interested in buying the Sun was Stewart Bainum, Jr., the CEO of Choice Hotels, the nursing home chain Manor Home Inc. and other corporations he inherited from his father. Bainum has also served as a Democrat in the Maryland General Assembly. He was framed as the possible “savior” of Baltimore media (Washington Post, 2/17/21, 10/26/21; New York Times, 2/17/21) and won the support of the “Save Our Sun” team.
After losing his bid to Alden Capital, Bainum launched the Baltimore Banner as a separate nonprofit news outlet (known as the Venetoulis Institute for Local Journalism, its parent organization, on tax documents). Bainum pledged $50 million over three and a half years. The Banner’s nonprofit status bought it an enormous amount of good will, with glowing articles months in advance of its launch.
The Baltimore Banner website launched in June 2022. In many ways, it was hard to distinguish from its corporate competitor. For one, most of its articles were behind a paywall. (Both the Banner and Sun charge about $20/month after an introductory period.) Many other nonprofit news outlets with similar multi-million budgets, like the Texas Tribune or ProPublica, offer their content for free.
In developing its business model, the Banner consulted with the Lenfest Institute, a nonprofit organization that runs the Philadelphia Inquirer, which does charge for subscriptions (Washington Post, 10/26/21). The Inquirer was often described as a model for the Banner. Yet, unlike the Banner, the Inquirer is a for-profit limited liability corporation owned by a nonprofit. There are very few nonprofit news outlets comparable to the Banner that make readers pay for news.
The Baltimore Banner‘s “About Us” page promises “to be an indispensable resource that strengthens, unites and inspires our Baltimore community…through trustworthy, quality journalism that tells the varied stories of our people.”
One issue might be the lack of nonprofit leadership experience at the Banner. The news outlet didn’t have a board of directors until about six months after it launched. With two exceptions (including Bainum’s wife, an actor), the Banner’s executive team and board of directors are composed of people from the corporate world, including corporate media.
So are most of its reporters. The Banner’s first prominent hires came from the Baltimore Sun, including its managing editors and numerous reporters. Although the Banner’s newsroom is more diverse than at the Sun, with an editorial staff that is about 27% people of color, the city has a roughly 70% non-white population. Meanwhile, the crime, politics and “enterprise” (investigations) desks are still overwhelmingly staffed with white reporters. (This data doesn’t include the “Banner Bot,” an AI function that pens a regular column on real estate and has no race.)
While the Banner’s subscription prices caused some online stir, the outlet also drew attention for its relationships with local corporations. The Baltimore Brew (6/9/23) reported that the Banner was getting a discount on rent from a major real estate development company.
The Banner also ran ads from Atlas Restaurant Group, a mammoth company owned by Alexander Smith, whose family owns the conservative Sinclair Broadcasting Group. Atlas has faced controversy for policies that restrict service based on racist and arbitrarily enforced dress codes. Atlas also catered the Banner’s launch event, and the Banner has continued to hold events at Atlas Restaurants, while giving the company significant uncritical press (e.g., 7/11/23, 10/2/23, 10/18/23).
The early marketing for the Banner emphasized its mission “to be an indispensable resource that strengthens, unites and inspires our Baltimore community.” Despite millions from Bainum, discounted rent and an income stream from ads, the community has had to pay for access.
Nonprofit news outlets can operate legally in a number of different ways, but the Baltimore Banner‘s chosen business model cost it much of its nonprofit sheen.
Within its first few months as a news outlet, the Baltimore Banner also made a number of editorial choices that alienated local readers who were hopeful for a real alternative to corporate news.
When editor-in-chief Kimi Yoshino (who previously worked for the Los Angeles Times) proudly announced the hiring of former Baltimore Sun and ProPublica reporter Alec MacGillis as editor-at-large (Twitter, 6/1/22), she faced immediate backlash. Many people reminded her that MacGillis had spent the previous two years minimizing the Covid pandemic and mocking Covid precautions. He was an extremist voice on the topic, comparing school closures to both South Africa’s apartheid and the Iraq War.
Twitter (12/24/20)
Locals also reminded Yoshino that MacGillis had been, up until his hiring, retweeting prominent anti-trans activists who expressed concern about gender nonconformity. Yoshino didn’t respond to the criticism, and MacGillis was brought on board.
Baltimore Banner (9/20/22)
Then, in September 2022, the Banner published an op-ed (9/20/22) from a man named Brian Griffiths, a “conservative activist,” according to his bio. He argued that government buildings shouldn’t fly pride flags: “You may see the transgender pride flag as a symbol of tolerance and acceptance,” he wrote. “I see it as a flag that denies the basic facts of biology and sex assigned at birth.” There was enormous outcry, with many people promising to cancel their subscriptions. Even several Banner reporters spoke out against the op-ed.
Yoshino published a written response (9/22/22), an “apology from the editor.” After expressing regret for causing harm, she defended her choices. She described Griffiths’ piece as “carefully edited” and reviewed by LGBTQ staffers. She insisted the Banner had a responsibility to share a “range of viewpoints.” Griffiths, she acknowledged, was hired to write a column from a conservative perspective.
At the time, the Banner had published only 14 of what it called “community voices,” and Griffiths had written four of those. None of the other op-ed writers had been published twice. He was the Banner’s first columnist, it seemed.
Yoshino’s response to the Griffiths outcry was her second public apology of sorts. She had apologized earlier in the year when the Banner published an op-ed (6/1/22), which is still online, that casually used the phrase “Jewtown” to describe a predominantly Jewish neighborhood.
After the Griffiths debacle, Yoshino announced the hiring of a public editor, DeWayne Wickham, a former opinion writer for USA Today and founding member of the National Association of Black Journalists, who wrote a regular column for the Banner over the next year. His columns occasionally commented on the Banner’s work, but mostly covered the media in general. At one point, Wickham (12/31/22) did come down on the Banner for a claim he felt wasn’t substantiated. That criticism was tucked into a mostly positive review of the outlet’s work to date. His next article (1/2/23) was an apology for criticizing his colleagues. (Wickham left the Banner in August 2023 and hasn’t been replaced.)
More recently, the Banner has seemed to temper its approach, no longer publishing Griffiths, for one. It hasn’t entirely backed away from inflammatory content, though. On November 17, 2023, its Twitter account posted a tweet that seemed to encapsulate the tension between its pursuit of a “range of viewpoints” and its civic-minded, nonprofit branding:
Twitter (11/17/23)
The Banner offered free access to this “health story,” which was a letter justifying opposition to vaccination. (The tweet has since been deleted, but the letter is still online.)
Baltimore Banner (8/27/22)
In its “Code of Conduct,” the Banner promises, “When we make a mistake, we are humble, admit our error and correct it,” and “if we ever stray from [our promises], readers should call us out and demand that we make amends.” Accountability and transparency remain ongoing issues for the outlet, as illustrated by the Banner‘s failure to “make amends” when it published a story that turned out to be unsubstantiated.
In August 2022, the Banner (8/27/22) reported that a Hollywood television production was shut down in Baltimore because drug dealers “threatened to shoot someone” and “attempted to extort $50,000 from the crew to stand down.” According to the Banner, “producers declined to pay.” The only source for the article was a Baltimore Police spokesperson.
The story was picked up by national news and entertainment press (e.g., Deadline, 8/28/22; LA Times, 8/28/22). It fostered the common perception that Baltimore is overrun by criminality and an unsafe place to mount a production.
Twitter (8/28/22)
When Baltimore locals expressed doubts about the story on Twitter, one of its reporters, Justin Fenton, insisted that it was true. “It did happen,” he said to a skeptical commentator.
A few days later, the Banner (8/30/22) reported that it probably didn’t happen: “Police Scale Back Accusations Related to Alleged Threat on Set of ‘Lady in the Lake,’” the headline stated. Police had investigated the initial claim and it didn’t hold up. The chief BPD spokesperson described the first article as “preliminary information.”
The Banner published this second story as if it were passively updating the original story, with no mea culpa for its role in running with the initial account prematurely. Fenton quietly deleted his tweets that had asserted that the incident “did happen.”
Issues with accountability and transparency are present in Fenton’s more recent articles on Bertonazzi, the man who died in Johns Hopkins Hospital. Certain claims are attributed to unidentified “police,” even though the Banner’s Code of Ethics insists that anonymous sources will be avoided:
When using information from an anonymous source, we include a reason why the source needs their name withheld…. Always, but especially in stories about politics or government, we examine requests for anonymity for possible ulterior motives.
The Code of Ethics also calls for transparency and specificity around corrections, but both Bertonazzi stories were updated many times without the specific updates noted, an ethical practice in journalism that shows readers how a story develops. What’s lost to the public is how the news outlet shaped its stories over time to support the police’s claims.
The Banner does deserve credit for some critical work that would likely not have appeared in the Baltimore Sun, including a series on healthcare in Maryland prisons and coverage for Baltimore’s large and growing immigrant population. But it hasn’t let go of the corporate media habit of publishing stories on policing sourced largely or exclusively by police (e.g., 11/7/23). It’s a particularly corrosive habit when the police are killers or suspects.
Baltimore Banner (6/16/23)
On April 21, 2022, Former President Barack Obama mentioned the “encouraging trend” of nonprofit newsrooms popping up across the country, citing Baltimore in a list of cities. By itself, “nonprofit” is a neutral term, a business model. There are countless nonprofits dedicated to ending the rights of women to have abortions. Religious groups like Scientology are 501(c)3 nonprofits known to commit harm.
The Banner’s own former public editor (6/16/23) acknowledged that the news outlet had a long way to go to look different from corporate news: “At other times it looked a lot like the city’s traditional news organizations—which is to say it hasn’t always looked like something new and different in its first year,” Wickham wrote in a year-in-review:
Of course, that’s to be expected. Most of its reporters and editors came from—and honed their journalism in—the old-school newsrooms that the Banner is trying not to duplicate.
In an article in the Conversation (1/17/19), Bill Birnbauer writes about the “huge disparity” between large and successful nonprofit news outlets, established by “wealthy individual donors” providing “venture-like capital,” and smaller outlets which comprise the vast majority of nonprofit newsrooms and rely on fickle private funding.
There is a downside to an institution like the Baltimore Banner operating as a nonprofit, especially when its approach to the news has been so variable. There is only so much private charitable money available in the city.
The Baltimore Brew, a small news outlet, has long been on top of financial corruption in the city, breaking the story (7/16/20) that led to former State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s recent federal conviction. The Baltimore Beat is Black-led and publishes a regular column on injustice in the courts. The Beat also publishes a monthly free print version, which is beneficial in a city that has many residents without internet access.
These and other independent Baltimore outlets will compete for funding with a nonprofit news site that is supported by a very wealthy businessman, has a revenue-driven business model, and was marketed aggressively as the savior of Baltimore media.
This article originally appeared in FAIR.org on December 21st, 2023.
See Related Posts
The Baltimore Sun’s Reckoning on Freddie Gray, FAIR
New Right-Wing Owner to Baltimore Sun Reporters: 'Go Make Me Some Money, Common Dreams
Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website, for more news and share our posts!
And read my brief bio about my writing life
On social media, visit me on
Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard
Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks
Overflowing morgues. Packed hospitals. City blocks reduced to rubble.
In response to Hamas’s October 7 terrorist attack, Israel has unleashed mass destruction on Gaza. Into a region the size of Las Vegas, with a population of 2.1 million, nearly half children, Israel has dropped more than 25,000 tons of bombs, the equivalent of nearly two Hiroshimas. It has killed journalists and doctors, wiped out dozens of members of a single family, massacred fleeing Palestinians, and even bombed a densely populated northern refugee camp. Repeatedly.
As UNICEF spokesperson James Elder recently put it, “Gaza has become a graveyard for thousands of children. It’s a living hell for everyone else.”
In its initial attack on Israel, Hamas killed about 1,200 people and kidnapped about 240 more. By the end of October, less than four weeks later, the Palestinian death toll in Gaza had reached a wholly disproportionate 8,805 people. (Since then, the number has surpassed 11,000.)
This run-up in the death count was so rapid that prominent voices resorted to outright denialism. John Kirby, White House National Security Council spokesperson, labeled the Gaza Health Ministry, which is responsible for tallying the Palestinian dead, “a front for Hamas” (Fox, 10/27/23). (The ministry actually answers to the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority—Reuters, 11/6/23.)
And President Joe Biden, much to Fox’s delight (10/25/23), declared: “I have no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed…. I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using.”
A Washington Post factcheck (11/1/23) diplomatically described this statement as an example of “excessive skepticism:
The State Department has regularly cited ministry statistics without caveats in its annual human rights reports. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which tracks deaths in the conflict, has found the ministry’s numbers to be reliable after conducting its own investigation. “Past experience indicated that tolls were reported with high accuracy,” an OCHA official told the Fact Checker.
For cable news, however, determining the precise number of Palestinian dead may not be all that relevant. Because for them, an important principle comes first: Some numbers don’t count as much as others. Whereas around seven times as many Palestinians died as Israelis during October, Palestinian victims appear to have received significantly less coverage on cable TV.
A slew of searches on the Stanford Cable TV News Analyzer, which scours transcripts from MSNBC, CNN and Fox News to determine the frequency with which given words and phrases are mentioned on cable news, bears this out. Here’s the breakdown of the screen time awarded to various search terms related to Israeli and Palestinian deaths over the course of October 2023 (see note 1):
In each instance above, coverage of Israeli victims outpaced coverage of Palestinian victims, often to a significant degree.
Even if they had reached numeric parity, that would still have translated to about seven times the mentions of Israeli deaths per dead Israeli compared to Palestinian deaths per dead Palestinian.
In their seminal study on media bias Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky make a distinction between worthy and unworthy victims. As far as the US media is concerned, the worthy include citizens of the US and allied nations, as well as people killed by state enemies. The unworthy include those killed by the US government and its friends.
Herman and Chomsky argue that we can expect the worthy and unworthy to be treated far differently by US media. The former will be the recipients of sympathy and support. The latter will be further victimized by neglect and perhaps even disdain.
It’s not hard to see who the media considers worthy in Israel and Palestine.
Victims aren’t the only ones who receive different treatment according to group status. So do victimizers. Consider, for example, how often war crimes are covered when they are committed by Hamas versus when they are committed by the Israeli military.
One war crime Hamas is often accused of is the use of civilians as “human shields.” As the Guardian (10/30/23) has reported:
Anecdotal and other evidence does suggest that Hamas and other factions have used civilian objects, including hospitals and schools. Guardian journalists in 2014 encountered armed men inside one hospital, and sightings of senior Hamas leaders inside the Shifa hospital have been documented.
However, the same article continues:
Making the issue more complicated…is the nature of Gaza and conflict there. As the territory consists mostly of an extremely dense urban environment, it is perhaps not surprising that Hamas operates in civilian areas.
International law also makes clear that even if an armed force is improperly using civilian objects to shield itself, its opponent is still required to protect civilians from disproportionate harm.
And it’s worth noting, as the Progressive (6/17/21) has, but the Guardian article unfortunately does not, that detailed investigations following the 2008–2009 and 2014 conflicts [between Israel and Hamas] by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the United Nations Human Rights Council and others have failed to find a single documented case of any civilian deaths caused by Hamas using human shields.
For its part, Israel has been accused of the use of white phosphorus in Gaza, a violation of international law. And its “indiscriminate military attacks” on Gaza have been described by United Nations experts as “collective punishment,” amounting to “a war crime.”
Yet coverage of these Israeli war crimes doesn’t even come close to coverage of “human shields.”
While “human shield(s)” got an estimated 907 mentions throughout October, “collective punishment” got only 140, and “white phosphorus” a mere 30.
The difference in media’s treatment of a friendly victimizer—one that may cause more death and destruction, but is a longstanding close ally of the United States—and of an official state enemy doesn’t stop there.
On top of downplaying the friendly victimizer’s current war crimes, the media are also happy to distract from a context in which the friendly victimizer has been oppressing a population for years. In this particular case, Israel has illegally occupied Palestinian land since 1967, and has enacted “ruthless policies of land confiscation, illegal settlement and dispossession, coupled with rampant discrimination.” It has subjected Gaza to an illegal air, land and sea blockade since 2007. And it has imposed a system of apartheid on the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, as documented by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and B’Tselem.
Cable coverage of this context can’t exactly be described as extensive. Shows in which “Hamas” was mentioned near “terrorism” or “terrorist(s),” in fact, outnumbered shows that mentioned “Israel” near “apartheid,” “occupation,” “blockade” or “settlement(s)” more than 3-to-1 during the month of October. (See note 2.)
Put simply, coverage of Israel’s long-standing oppression of the Palestinian people doesn’t appear to come anywhere close to coverage of Hamas’s terrorist acts. Context is swept under the rug. An enemy’s crimes are displayed indignantly on the mantel.
This sort of coverage does not contribute to creating a population capable of thinking critically about violent conflict. Instead, its main purpose seems to be to stir up hatred for a state enemy, and blind support for a state ally. All a viewer has to remember are two simple principles:
Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and this link for my brief bio.
On social media, visit me on
Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard
Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks
