After a years-long engagement and acceptance into and participation in its sustainability audit, LION Publishers has kicked out the McKinley Park News – and even canceled my ticket to their conference this weekend – for “disrespect” because I privately raised raised concerns about LION’s seeming self-dealing, corrupt behavior and serving the interests of its primary funder – Google – over those of local news publishers.

LION had solicited my direct feedback as a participating publisher, and after privately sharing my concerns on a call with their membership director, I sent an email follow-up, below.

In short order, and without notice, process, or review, LION honcho Chris Krewson kicked us to the curb. Although there was some CYA follow-up (my reply to this also below), my schedule permitted no improvised tribunal from non-journalists already acting in bad faith and accountable to none but themselves. (LION “members” have no actual say in governance, oversight, or leadership, despite LION Publishers’ fraudulent masquerade as a dues-charging membership organization.)

I’ve written before about how we’ll take what we can get from every source, as we’re an unfunded, unsupported, bootstrapped local news publication. However, we can’t compromise our core values, and we certainly can’t work with those who steal from us, or groups like LION Publishers that train others to steal from us, giving credence to AI theft that is so destructive to every local news publication’s sustainability.

LION Publishers is not on the side of the McKinley Park News or other local news publishers. This exploitation of the resurgence of interest in the news industry while serving other interests is an unfortunate pattern I’m seeing all over the place, and I’ll have more to say about this and the LION Publishers situation in a coming Letter from the Editor.

Here’s my email to their membership director after our initial phone conversation:

Hi Sarah:

Thanks for the chance to bend your ear today. I appreciate your and LION Publisher's leadership's consideration of my questions and concerns.

I am disheartened to learn of the lack of consideration within LION about the ethical concerns I raised; LION's seeming, unaddressed conflicts of interest amplified by lack of transparency and accountability to members; and LION working closely with third parties that cause immense and direct harm to local news publishers like us. Also disheartening was your suggestion that if I didn't like it, I could leave ...  as I said, LION has done much good, including for us, and I think it could be an even better organization were it to prioritize the interests of local news publishers over that of the organization itself, its employees and its funders.

For some more background, here are a couple Letters from the Editor that relate to the topics we discussed:

    • "Why I'll Quit Publishing the McKinley Park News"
This is now over a year old, and indeed, LION should be well aware of it and my concerns about AI theft against local news, given how it was a topic reviewed in our Sustainability Audit.
 
    • "Adieu, Google"
Why does LION support and work so closely with a direct competitor that steals from local news, that profits from misinformation that puts journalists in harm's way, that's being sued by the FTC for its anti-competitive practices in online advertising, and that has a history of exploitation and bad behavior against the news industry? As I demonstrate, Google is not required to power full features for a local news website.

One thing I forgot to mention in our call today is the notable lack of any resources, programming or expertise in my No. 1 most-needed area for building a sustainable local news business: Advertising! I have had to look entirely outside LION (and other "institutions" of journalism) for any resources at all to help with what has historically been the top source of revenue for news outlets, even though I've provided audit feedback that this was sorely needed. Why doesn't anyone teach advertising to its members?  Just like LION, these other institutions are also getting big bucks from a direct competitor.

This and these other unaddressed actions really makes it seem like LION Publishers serves the interests of Google and/or itself over those of LION members. Or maybe all that money exerts a pernicious influence on LION leadership and employees to favor Google in order to keep the funding flowing, lest you lose your jobs.

I do not want to think these horrible things, but LION has never addressed these glaring conflicts of interest and seeming self-service: a very bad practice for charitable corporations. (As I learned as executive director of a 501(c)(3), even the appearance of a conflict of interest is a gigantic problem that needs to be publicly addressed.) As mentioned in the call, a true "membership" organization like a 501(c)(6) mitigates many such problems through transparency and accountability to its membership.

The most discouraging thing is that the seeming conflicts of interest and ethical lapses are completely off the radar of LION leadership. As I understood from our call, these aren't even issues that merit concern or consideration, despite the seeming problems within the organization and the massive and obvious harm caused to LION members: a direct contradiction of LION Publishers' mission to help us.

I'd feel so much different were LION to provide a forum to consider things like AI theft of its members' content, expertise and livelihood. (And/or operate as a true "membership" organization that offers transparency, mandates accountability and enables self-governance powered by its membership.) Unfortunately, LION is providing answers to these key questions as a fait accompli: giving credence to actions and third parties with zero concern or consideration about the harm caused to LION members.

A good place to start would be for LION to conceive and publish a position statement about AI use of its members' copyrighted products. Your (and LION's) inability to answer a simple Yes/No question speaks volumes. I'd still like to know: Does LION consider it acceptable for my local news product to be used in AI and LLM services without my permission?

As it stands, LION's implicitly saying that this theft is OK by presenting programs that advocate for AI theft and offer up experts and vendors who build their practices based on stolen goods. You are training people to steal from us. At the very least, the LION conference this fall might support a session about AI copyright concerns, instead of just giving this theft credence by only presenting one side of the issue.

Ugh, now I'm wondering how much Google is footing of the conference bill.

Like I said, I'd prefer not to assume bad faith on LION's part, but LION's giving me little reason to think otherwise as a years-long member organization. Please prove me wrong! And apologies if anything above has already been addressed online et al, but I missed it.

I'm available for any follow-up as needed. Thanks again for listening. Cheers!

Here’s my email to LION’s representative after their inadequate follow-up:

Hi Rebekah:

I have no interest in your organization as it is loaded with unaddressed conflicts of interest, acts inimically to the constituency you purport to serve, and prioritizes the interests of your for-profit funders over those of independent journalism and sustainability for local news. I'd just appreciate getting any of my questions answered.

When I privately provided my honest feedback after LION directly solicited it, "disrespect" was the specious and vague reason for summary ejection without any consideration or method: certainly nothing like actual "membership" organizations where dues-payers have a voice in governance, leadership faces accountability, and transparency mitigates corruption. LION's knee-jerk ejection was immediate and supported by no process, supporting data, published method, or peer review ... until your inadequate and improvised follow-up.

Were LION an organization that serves local news publishers, you'd at least indicate you're internally considering LION's significant and obvious conflicts of interest, seeming self-dealing and absolute abandonment of charitable purpose to benefit for-profit funders that compete directly with my publication, my news industry and its interests.
Instead, there's no consideration or conversation, either with myself, the public or anyone else at LION: You answer no questions, and kick out someone who's blowing the whistle.

I'd be pretty happy with even a yes/no answer to one simple question: Does LION support AI (or any for-profit) use of my local news publication and work product against my wishes as a local news publisher and my terms of service?  I don't think you or anyone at LION has the courage to answer this question, or address the other issues I raised.

I think that LION and folks like you who enable it are bad for journalism and the news industry, riding the coattails of renewed interest while siphoning off funding that should go to local news, and taking a payoff from competing interests to do the wrong thing for journalism. This is all made worse by sticking your heads in the sand, ignoring the conflicts and corruption, and summarily kicking out anyone who rocks the boat.

I certainly will be warning others about LION as yet another example of non-profits that aren't really non-profits exploiting journalism instead of helping it, as well as submitting complaints about LION to regulatory agencies.

Thanks again for your reply.

Although I had my ticket yanked to the LION Publishers conference, the gracious and talented Alicia Ramirez of the The Riverside Record reached out to invite me as her plus-one to tonight's award dinner and reception: to connect as a fellow journalist and local news publisher about the horror of AI theft of our work products and livelihoods, and to brew up ideas for organizations like LION that keep doing the wrong thing for journalism.

Alicia filled me in on the travesty of the sell-out, corrupt California legislation that is supposed to help that state's news outlet victims of Google's rapacious, monopolistic and anti-competitive actions. However, an 11th hour call apparently put the fix in with supposed friends and leaders of California news to get them to flip-flop on policy and help pass a neutered law where Google pays only a fraction of what it owes California journalists: a minuscule crumb of its revenue from selling ads next to content stolen from news.

Here's an article in The Wrap about the California journalism law/abomination with Alicia's great comments and advocacy.

Here's Alicia's stunning essay about the law in the San Francisco Chronicle.

The result of the California legislation is similar to Google News Initiative's payola with Medill, LION and too many others: Google funds supposed non-profit journalism support organizations ... that end up just helping Google, or at least would never do anything to harm or compete with Google (even if it would very much help journalism). This is how Google extends its hegemony over the local online news industry, but it couldn't do it without help from stooges as found at organizations like LION.

One notable element of tonight's gala affair was an observable contingent of local news publishers not very enthusiastic at all about Google's significant presence as the event's (and the organization's) primary sponsor. I sat next to a delightful professional from Toronto aghast at Google's bad behavior in her country. One publisher, who received $20K funded by Google as part of LION's sustainability audit, called the award "blood money."

I took the Google money. So did Alicia. She, like me, has scant resources and can't say no. As I told Alicia, I view this as the business equivalent of guerrilla warfare. However, no amount would be enough to buy our silence while Google and too many others steal our work product and livelihoods as journalists.

In contrast, whatever Google's paying LION, it's getting its money's worth.

At the very least, I was encouraged to hear about other local news publishers bewailing the conflict of interest in turning over an organization to the primary competitor of the constituency that organization purports to serve. Lots of other stuff came out of the woodwork, too, including some folks who contacted me directly with similar concerns and experiences after reading my original post here. (Thanks!)

And Alicia: You rock!  Thank you so much for your invitation, your independence and your advocacy on behalf of our news industry. I look forward to connecting again to discuss our journalism industry and the fight against those who exploit it.

A comrade publisher from California shared the following great article published a couple days ago on The Lever: " Google's 'Assistance' Is Killing Journalism ."

This goes into great depth and detail about how how LION and others supposedly working on journalism's behalf (but really just working for themselves) are betraying our industry, our craft and the public.

Those like Neil Chase are walking Peter principles that have no interest in supporting local news, and indeed they are not part of our industry. What they do have, however, is an interest in inflating their own careers and benefits by helping Big Tech steal from journalism.

Did you know that Medill is no longer an accredited school of journalism? I've participated in their programs and presentations and seen firsthand how this institution makes big bucks by creating false equivalencies between journalism and marketing: between a duty to truth versus an agenda to manipulate.

These folks are toxic to journalism.