National Archives wants volunteers with ‘superpower’ to read cursive
Cursive seems to be a lost art, but there’s an opportunity for history enthusiasts, who also still value the traditional handwriting style. The National Archives is looking for volunteers to transcribe more than 200 years’ worth of documents written in cursive.
It’s for a collaboration with the National Park Service to celebrate the country’s 250th birthday.
The materials include Revolutionary War pension records, immigration documents from the 1890s and Japanese evacuation records.
Cursive writing is traced back to ancient Roman scribes, which eventually evolved into the modern forms of cursive used today.
But since the rise of computers, phones and tablets, handwriting has become less common.
“Reading cursive is a superpower,” the community manager with the National Archives catalog, Suzanne Isaacs told USA Today.
Many states are still teaching cursive to kids. California and New Hampshire were the most recent states to pass legislation making it mandatory.
According to Education Week, 24 states in total require cursive writing to be taught in schools for students K-12.
That’s fewer than half of what was required 25 to 30 years ago.
Meanwhile, some states like Maine and Montana leave it up to the individual school districts to decide whether to require students to learn cursive.
For those interested in helping the National Archives, people can register for a free account online with the National Archives and click on “citizen archivist.”
Then those registered can begin reading available documents that are ready to be cataloged.
How Jimmy Carter’s death was politicized in headlines: Bias Breakdown
As the world prepares for the funeral of former President Jimmy Carter, the condolences offered by President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump are being politicized in news headlines. Carter passed away Sunday, Dec. 29, and swift reactions poured in, with Trump taking to Truth Social and Biden holding a press conference.
Right-leaning news outlets largely highlighted criticism of Biden’s speech.
Fox News: “Biden shredded for calling on Trump to emulate ‘decency’ shown by Carter.”
Daily Mail: “Biden uses remarks about Jimmy Carter’s death to make not-so-subtle dig at Trump.”
New York Post: “Biden ripped for needling Trump in response to Jimmy Carter’s death: ‘Unmitigated gall.’”
Left-leaning outlets largely focused on criticism of Trump’s remarks on Carter over time.
The Daily Beast: “Trump Ticks Off MAGA With U-Turn on Jimmy Carter.”
New Republic: “Trump Pisses Off MAGA Fans With Sudden Reversal on Jimmy Carter.”
USA Today: “From ‘worst president’ to ‘highest respect’: Trump softens opinion of Jimmy Carter in death.”
Biden spoke about his relationship with Carter in a speech, referring to him as a dear friend, a statesman and a humanitarian — someone the country could idolize.
“What I find extraordinary about Jimmy Carter though is that millions of people all around the world feel they lost a friend as well, even though they never met him,” Biden said. “That’s because Jimmy Carter lived a life measured not by words, but by his deeds.”
However, it was the next part of Biden’s speech that became the focus of some right-leaning news coverage, when a reporter asked Biden if there was anything incoming President Trump could take away from the late president.
“Is there anything President Trump could take away from President Carter?” the reporter asked.
“Decency, decency, decency,” Biden responded. “Everybody deserves a shot, everybody. Can you imagine Jimmy Carter walking by someone who needs something and just keep walking? Can you imagine Jimmy Carter referring to someone by the way they look or talk? I can’t. I can’t.”
Biden’s remarks, calling Carter a man of decency in response to a question about Trump, were widely reported. However, the way the comment was framed differed between left-leaning and right-leaning media.
The right-leaning outlets related the remarks back to a dig at Trump, while some left-leaning outlets reported the quote without mentioning what provoked Biden’s response.
In NBC’s write-up, Biden’s comments were presented as a tribute to Carter’s character.
“Biden, who said he was the first national figure to endorse Carter when he ran for president in 1976, lauded the former president’s character. Biden said his memories of Carter boiled down to ‘decency, decency, decency’ and Carter’s belief that everybody ‘deserved a shot,’” NBC reported.
Trump’s name was not mentioned in the NBC article.
While Biden’s remarks were reported differently depending on a news outlet’s political lean, the same was true for Trump’s tribute to Carter.
Trump posted on Truth Social: “I just heard of the news about the passing of President Jimmy Carter. Those of us who have been fortunate to have served as president understand this is a very exclusive club, and only we can relate to the enormous responsibility of leading the greatest nation in history. The challenges Jimmy faced as president came at a pivotal time for our country and he did everything in his power to improve the lives of all Americans. For that, we all owe him a debt of gratitude.”
In another post, Trump added: “While I strongly disagreed with him philosophically and politically, I also realized that he truly loved and respected our country, and all it stands for. He worked hard to make America a better place, and for that I give him my highest respect. He was a truly good man and, of course, will be greatly missed.”
These posts led to different angles in news coverage, particularly among left-leaning outlets, regarding a shift in Trump’s tone.
The Daily Beast led its article with: “Donald Trump supporters called out the president-elect for failing to ‘keep it real’ in his glowing tribute to former president Jimmy Carter following his death at 100 on Sunday. Trump’s message to Carter was a departure from his usual attacks on the Democrat, whom he had ripped into just days earlier for brokering a deal in 1977 over the Panama Canal.”
In USA Today’s article, examples of Trump’s rhetoric prior to Carter’s death were cited.
“Trump offered a far less charitable view of Carter when he was alive,” USA Today reported. “For years, Trump, a Republican, has mocked the one-term, Democratic commander-in-chief as the nation’s worst president. Just two months ago, on Carter’s 100th birthday, Trump suggested the terminally ill centenarian was happy because Joe Biden had finally replaced him as the worst president ever.”
Past specific feuds between Trump and Carter were not mentioned in the earlier right-leaning news articles covering reactions to Carter’s death.
These editorial decisions differed across news outlets when reporting on this story. The context behind Biden’s answer about Carter’s decency was more relevant for right-leaning outlets, and context between Carter and Trump’s past was more relevant for left-leaning outlets.
Right-leaning news outlets were largely more critical of Biden’s response, while left-leaning outlets were largely more critical of Trump’s response.
USA Today, Gannett papers won’t endorse 2024 presidential candidate
In a move marking a shift in the media’s approach to election coverage, Gannett’s USA TODAY Network announced it won’t endorse any presidential or national candidates for the 2024 election. USA TODAY and over 200 other Gannett-owned publications will instead focus on local issues, though editors at these local outlets can endorse state and local candidates or ballot issues.
Gannett’s approach aligns with recent decisions by other major publications that are also stepping away from direct candidate endorsements. The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times both announced they wouldn’t endorse a presidential candidate in 2024.
Historically, endorsements from influential papers like The New York Times and The Washington Post have shaped voter perceptions. However, with a growing public distrust in media impartiality, some outlets are reconsidering the impact of these endorsements.
Getty Images
The Washington Post reportedly experienced a notable decline in subscribers after its decision, possibly signaling the contentious nature of endorsements.
Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos released a public letter addressing the choice, stating that endorsements may create a “perception of bias” and that ending them was a “principled decision.”
Despite this shift, Gannett reassures readers that its outlets will continue to cover critical issues and offer insights at the state and local levels. The company’s focus, it asserts, remains on delivering news that empowers local communities.
Less invasive self-administered pap smear now available
Women are known to dread getting a pap smear. While it’s recommended only every three to five years now, depending on age, the cervical cancer screening is known to be invasive, uncomfortable, and often just downright painful. However, new technology is changing that.
The first shipments of self-collection human papillomavirus, or HPV tests, are now arriving at doctors’ offices across the country. The FDA just approved the tests in May, which require patients to gather their own sample with a swab while in a health care setting like the doctor’s office, urgent care or pharmacy clinic.
Cervical cancer has been identified as one of the top preventable causes of death in the nation, and HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 11,000 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in the U.S. every year and about 4,000 women die of the disease annually. One study found about two-thirds of cervical cancers are diagnosed in women who are not screened within the recommended interval.
Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are required to cover the costs of cervical cancer screening.
Getting vaccinated against HPV can also help. There are more than 150 strains of the virus, and the vaccine is proven to protect against the nine riskiest strains.
Media pays AP for news content, but Gannett, McClatchy cut ties, save money
Two of the nation’s largest newspaper publishers, Gannett and McClatchy, are ending their partnership with The Associated Press, one of the world’s largest content providers for news organizations. This is a significant development in the media industry as companies continue to look at ways to cut costs.
“With this decision, we will no longer pay millions for content that serves less than 1% of our readers,” Kathy Vetter, McClatchy’s senior vice president of news and audience, said in an email reviewed by The New York Times. “In most cases we have found replacements. However, we are still working on a universal solution for state ‘wires’ content.”
Right now, the media industry is having to look at its margins and trim costs where it can. Saving money is one of the reasons Gannett and McClatchy announced they are dropping the AP.
It’s unclear how much the partnership with AP cost Gannett or McClatchy, but it is known that McClatchy was paying millions.
Another reason Gannett gave is because it will use their own network of newspapers and staff around the country to share content from within their own company. Gannett owns USA Today and more than 200 other outlets. For international news, the company signed with Reuters, another major wire.
“This decision enables us to invest further in our newsrooms and leverage our incredible USA Today network of more than 200 newsrooms across the nation as well as USA Today to reach and engage more readers, viewers and listeners,” Gannett spokesperson Lark-Marie Anton said in a statement.
Gannett and McClatchy were said to be in contract negotiations with the AP before news of their partnerships ending broke. The Associated Press issued a statement.
“We appreciate that these are difficult decisions to make and deeply understand the challenges the news industry faces,” AP spokesperson Lauren Easton told Poynter. “At the same time, this would be a disservice to news consumers across the U.S. who would no longer see fact-based journalism from the AP.”
How Macy’s closures signal a major transformation in shopping habits
Macy’s has been a part of American culture for more than 165 years. However, the brick-and-mortar stores are disappearing. The company announced it is closing 150 of its namesake stores over the next three years, according to USA Today.
Macy’s is one of the most notable U.S. department store, but that doesn’t make it exempt from the ongoing struggles of retail shops, especially bigger department stores.
Axios reported Macy’s is turning its focus toward more “luxury sales” under the leadership of a new CEO who took over in early February.
Macy’s may be closing nearly a third of its namesake stores, but the company said it’s opening at least 30 new Bluemercury beauty stores and 15 new Bloomingdale’s locations, according to Axios.
Some critics said that Macy’s leadership should have made changes sooner.
Neil Saunders of GlobalData told CNN that the department store “stopped listening to customers” and contends that the financial problems the store is now facing are because of a “failure to evolve.”
In fact, Macy’s struggles to keep customers from competitors are why some investors are reportedly pressuring the company to sell and go private. In January, Macy’s rejected a takeover bid by an investment group known as Arkhouse Management, as reported by The New York Times.
When it comes to closures, Macy’s has yet to identify the stores that will be shuttered but said that the locations chosen are “underproductive.” The company said the first 50 stores will be closed this time next year.
CNN reported that retail data shows when it comes to big box stores, customers are shifting to the likes of Walmart, which offers lower prices and more of a one-stop shop with groceries. However, all big box retailers are facing the exodus of in-person shopping.
When physical stores closed in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, online sales soared. Pew Research found that e-commerce sales totaled more than $205 billion, up 55% from the year prior, and while some shoppers have returned to in-person stores, online retail sales remain well above pre-pandemic levels. U.S. Census Bureau data reveals that in 2023, stores with an online-only presence took the bulk of all retail e-commerce sales.
Malls have been struggling since well before the pandemic. In 2019, 9,300 stores in malls closed throughout the U.S., according to a Business Insider analysis.
A Capitol One report said that malls used to number 25,000 in the 1980s. The Wall Street Journal reveals that just 700 remained at the end of 2022, and retail advisory firm SiteWorks told The Wall Street Journal that as few as 150 may be left nationwide by 2032.
However, SiteWorks’ president did say that Macy’s may be among the survivors, claiming only those malls with the most updated infrastructure, best fashion, and luxury retailers will remain.
These Sports Illustrated writers never existed. Their faces are AI-generated.
Sports Illustrated has removed articles after Futurism reported that the outlet published them under fake author names with AI-generated headshots. The revelation has sparked concerns about the growing use of AI in journalism.
On Monday, Nov. 27, Futurism reported that the headshots of these nonexistent writers were available for purchase on a website that sells AI-generated content. According to the report, a source involved in the creation of the authors confirmed that some of the articles attributed to the authors were also AI-generated.
The Arena Group has been Sports Illustrated’s publisher since 2019. The company addressed the allegations in a statement to media outlets.
The articles in question were product reviews and were licensed content from an external, third-party company, AdVon Commerce.
The Arena Group
“Today, an article was published alleging that Sports Illustrated published AI-generated articles,” the statement said. “According to our initial investigation, this is not accurate. The articles in question were product reviews and were licensed content from an external, third-party company, AdVon Commerce.”
The Arena Group statement also mentioned that AdVon Commerce writers use pen or pseudo-names for some articles.
Sports Illustrated is not the first outlet accused of experimenting with AI and not disclosing it. In October, USA Today’s product reviews site, Reviewed, faced accusations of publishing AI-generated articles.
Despite AI detection programs reportedly indicating otherwise, Gannett said that the articles were written by freelancers, according to The New York Times. USA Today currently has ethical guidelines that mandate disclosure when AI is employed in their content creation process.
USA Today writers accuse outlet of publishing AI-generated articles
Journalists at USA Today’s product review site, Reviewed, sounded the alarm, claiming some of the affiliate marketing articles published were AI-generated. According to a Washington Post report, staff writers and the union pointed to two reviews specifically, one for scuba masks and another for vacuum tumblers. The writers claim that the stories have similar wording throughout.
According to recent reporting, the newly published shopping page where the articles were found was taken down as of Tuesday, Oct. 24, but the individual articles can still be found. Reviewed employees, represented by The NewsGuild of New York, claimed this was an attempt by the company to replace their labor and cut costs.
But a spokesperson at Reviewed told the Post that the articles were not AI-generated. Instead, the spokesperson said that freelancers that were hired by a third party wrote the articles, adding, “the pages were deployed without affiliate disclaimers and did not meet our editorial standards.”
However, the union claims that some freelancers credited with the reviews aren’t real, with writers at Reviewed saying they could not find evidence online that they existed.
The outcry comes a week after a one-day strike staged by Reviewed’s unionized employees, and as union members across the industry and in Hollywood are trying to negotiate for protections against the use of AI.
Poll shows Americans are divided on the meaning of ‘woke’
As the term “woke” gains increasing prevalence in the Republican political arena, a new poll suggests that Americans are divided on its true meaning. The phrase, which gained popularity during the Black Lives Matter movement in 2014, is being used by many on the right to describe the far-left.
A recent USA Today poll framed the term into two definitions and found that 56% of Americans associated the word woke with being aware of social injustice, while 39% said it means to be overly politically correct.
Conservatives have used the term to describe left-wing liberal agendas and policies, though there is no agreed-upon meaning within the GOP. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has called woke the new religion of the Left. Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley has described it as a virus more dangerous than any pandemic.
However, progressives, like talk show host David Pakman, argue the term has been hijacked. “The idea was challenge the status quo, fight against systematic and systemic oppression to try and create a better world,” Pakman said. “I don’t even know that anyone on the Left is still using the term in anything other than satirical fashion,” he added.
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the term woke as being aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues. African American novelist William Melvin Kelley is credited with first using the slang phrase back in 1962 in the title of a New York Times essay.
NFL’s Russell Wilson faces criticism over charitable foundation’s spending
The NFL’s Walter Payton Man of the Year Award was established to recognize players who have had a “significant positive impact” on their community. In 2020, the league honored then-Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson with the award, citing the work his charity, the Why Not You Foundation, had been doing to empower disadvantaged children.
A six month investigation by the USA TODAY Network into past WPMOY winners has raised questions about the financial records of Wilson’s organization.
The Better Business Bureau normally expects efficient nonprofits to spend at least 65 to 75 cents of every dollar on charitable activities, with the best spending far more. USA Today reported the Why Not You Foundation spent less than 25 cents of every dollar it raised on charitable activities from 2020 through 2021. During the 2020 NFL season in which Wilson was named Walter Payton Man of the Year, his Why Not You Foundation reported $838,000 in revenue and $1.2 million in expenses, including $257,000 on program services, meaning just 21.3 cents of every dollar spent went to philanthropic initiatives.
Over that same time span, the nonprofit was putting nearly twice as much money toward salaries and employee benefits, including a more than $200,000 annual paycheck for one executive who has also worked for other business ventures of Wilson and his wife, Ciara. In total, during the first eight years of the foundation’s existence, just $2.8 million, or a little over 39 cents of every dollar spent, has gone to charitable activities — all as grants to other organizations.
Nonprofit oversight attorney Andrew Morton believes the Why Not You Foundation could be at risk of facing substantial IRS penalties, saying that there is a “high probability” the agency could conclude some of the nonprofit’s salaries constitute excess benefit transactions. Morton also added that the risk of penalties from government entities is exacerbated because “it is absolutely, categorically illegal to have a nonprofit pay you to do work outside of supporting its charitable purposes, let alone furthering private interests.”
Executives at the charity contend they are actually giving more than what is being reported. Shayla Tait, the executive director of the Why Not You Foundation, has said that because their organization works with various groups who donate directly to causes, that money does not show up on their tax records.
“Like many charitable organizations, a significant amount of our philanthropic impact is not reflected on our 990 form, including more than $10 million raised in collaboration with our partners, who granted these funds directly to nonprofit organizations serving immediate needs,” Tait said. “Russell, Ciara and the WNYF have always cared more about impact than credit. Our teamwork approach has proven successful, especially in critical times.”
Wilson, now with the Denver Broncos, has echoed this explanation in his own statement following the investigation into his nonprofit. The Super Bowl XLVIII champion said that his organization has been able to deliver results because it “will always care more about impact than credit.”
“For our Why Not You Foundation over the past eight years we’ve been so freaking blessed to meet so many amazing people, so many amazing kids along the way and to be able to also partner with some amazing brands,” Wilson said. “With those partnerships we’ve been fortunate to be able to drive over 10 plus millions of dollars for pediatric cancer, for education and for hunger prevention and so much more. Those are the things that haven’t really been highlighted and talked about, but I just want to highlight those things.”
The nonprofits of two other former WPMOY honorees, Charles Tillman and Anquan Boldin, were also found to be giving less than 26 cents of every dollar made to charity work. Tillman’s group had 26 cents of every dollar spent on charities, while Boldin’s foundation directed 25.5 cents of every dollar, raising more questions about the extent of this issue.
