I remember very clearly a decade back there were folks at TPM guffawing at “Buzzfeed News” and others, tight and distressed, saying, get real, that’s your competition now. Today Buzzfeed CEO Jonah Peretti announced that Buzzfeed News is being shuttered once and for all. It’s a remarkable and sobering arc over a relatively short span of time.

I’ve seen various wisecracks online about whether they’ll have listicles of the top ten reasons they went under. But you won’t hear that from me. A few dozen current employees are losing their jobs. There was plenty of frothiness in Buzzfeed. But the News division employed a huge number of incredibly talented journalists in the outfit’s heyday. These are not just kind words. There was a time when every news outlet had to contend with the giant sucking sound behind some of their best employees getting pulled away by the fat salaries at Buzzfeed and the very real excitement of the new, new thing and eye-popping growth. And it wasn’t just talented journalists. It wasn’t always the stuff you saw but they actually produced a huge amount of pretty amazing reporting. The subhed of the Times piece, which broke the news, called it an outfit that “won a Pulitzer Prize but never made money.”

That may be the most concise and fitting epitaph.

There’s currently a flood of members of Congress from Florida endorsing Donald Trump and not Ron DeSantis. I’m trying to keep up with how many are just from the last couple days. I think it’s five new Trump endorsements either officially announced in the couple days or reported as on the way. It all comes right after DeSantis visited DC to round up endorsements or at least get former House colleagues not to endorse Trump. Not yet at least.

It’s a rebuke and a humiliation, almost certainly choreographed by Trump. It’s all part of the story of DeSantis’s collapsing campaign, a story much of the press still won’t quite accept. But there’s a specific part of this I want to highlight for you.

I wanted to address a separate issue about the Fox settlement. Through this process what we might call the glitz media press was quite skeptical both of the strength of Dominion’s suit and what it meant for press freedoms generally. I noted some of this last month from the two media reporters from Puck News, Dylan Byers and Eriq Gardner. But they’re extreme examples of a general phenomenon.

The general point is that media reporters don’t seem terribly well versed on media law. There was some pretty basic lack of knowledge about the key elements of defamation law. The general reason for that is that most glitz media journalism focuses on a mix of personalities and the business of journalism. And in this case by the business of journalism I mean acquisitions and mergers of the big conglomerates, market fluctuations and so forth. There are lots of media reporters who know the legal stuff cold. But they don’t tend to be the category of reporters I’m talking about here. They’re writing in the digital equivalent of what were once called the ‘small magazines’ or in the niche media press.

In those pieces I noted above Byers and Gardner treated reports that Fox was in a dire situation as a sort of liberal fanfic, untethered to the reality of the situation. But what struck me more than the poor legal analysis was the general sense that those who hoped for Fox to gets comeuppance were either naive about or indifferent to press freedom generally.

I’m seeing a lot of mixed opinions about the Fox/Dominion settlement. Mostly, I agree with David’s sum-up and response. To the extent you’re disappointed or feel like Fox got away with it, your expectations were unrealistic. Dominion’s a private company. It’s in the business of being in business and making money, not saving American democracy.

It’s genuinely difficult to comprehend the magnitude of the financial settlement: upwards of a billion dollars. Someone asked me yesterday if it were the biggest defamation settlement in history. I noticed a few reports basically hedging on this point, calling it likely the biggest settlement ever. But I think that’s mostly because it’s hard to prove a negative on the fly. I’m not sure there’s ever been a pay out even a 10th the size. (Mammoth verdicts are often trimmed down or tossed entirely on appeal.)

I’m also surprised that there was no admission of error, let alone an apology — we’ll get to that in a moment. But the reality is that the discovery process itself was a devastating verdict on Fox’s lack of any journalistic principles as a news organization. And the galactic size of the settlement really speaks for itself.

When we started this year’s annual TPM membership drive we needed to add at least 500 new subscribers. We’re now just 38 new subscribers short of that goal.

I wanted to share some thoughts on AI, artificial intelligence. The part of the discussion that has my attention is certainly not being overlooked. But it’s not at the center of the debate. It deserves more attention.

There are lots of different uses for so-called “generative AI.” But the kinds I’m particularly focused on are the ones used to create visual art based on textual prompts, write essays or even compose songs. This part of the discussion first got my attention a few months ago when an artist/illustrator friend of mine started talking about it on social media, how Silicon Valley’s latest disruption was set to put illustrators and artists — so often living on the financial margins already — out of business.

Now, job disruption isn’t new in this discussion. The fact that AI will put tons of people out of work is something that everyone talks about. But her discussion got me to focus on the fact that in these creative areas, what generative AI and LLMs are doing is going out and consuming all the existing art, or writing or musical compositions and learning how to create new works by absorbing all that information. Put more directly, that AI engine that creates the cool futuristic drawings of your face learned how to do that by consuming the work of thousands or millions of artists to learn how to produce the images that will now make the work of those same artists and illustrators superfluous and end their ability to make a living.

And now we know: there was no last-minute deal to settle the Dominion defamation case against Fox News. Jury selection is currently underway. Yesterday, I said I had some question over whether Dominion’s decision not to present a claim about the loss of future profits might signal that they were clearing the way for a settlement. Apparently not.

I should note that I did hear from a number of lawyers yesterday who said that they interpreted this as most likely a matter of Dominion focusing its trial strategy now that they know a lot more about what the trial, with the benefit of discovery and the judge’s decisions, is going to look like.

We have now added 448 new members toward our goal of adding 500 new members during our annual TPM membership drive. That means we’re 52 sign ups away from achieving our goal.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) took to the airwaves yesterday in defense of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), arguing that it’s up to Feinstein to decide if and when she leaves office before the end of her term. Gillibrand says that many other senators have had serious illnesses that have kept them away from the Senate. “They all deserve a chance to get better and come back to work. Dianne will get better. She will come back to work.”

This is not a strong or good argument.

It’s certainly true that senators, most of whom are over 65, have had health problems that take them away from the Senate. They’re not pressured to leave office in the way Feinstein is being pressured.

But Feinstein’s case is very different.

A little tea leaf reading on the Dominion Fox trial. The trial, which was supposed to begin today, was delayed one day to allow the parties one last chance to reach a settlement. If you look at the details this appears to be at the judge’s instigation. That is not unusual. Judges would almost always like to see the parties resolve their disagreements prior to trial; and one day left before trial tends to focus people’s minds. In addition to a potentially mammoth judgment the trial itself is likely to be highly damaging to Fox. But the one day delay and final negotiations do not necessarily mean that either party has become more inclined to reach a deal.

There’s another point that comes up in this Post piece. Dominion appears to have dropped $600 million of its $1.6 billion claim against Fox. That $600 million was for lost future profits, whereas the remaining $1 billion was for lost “enterprise value.” The revelation is a bit murky because it came in a Sunday filing from Fox, which references an email from Dominion. But a statement Dominion gave to the Post appears to confirm that that part of the claim was withdrawn.