New York magazine editor Lauren Kern named first Editor-in-Chief of Apple News

“Apple News is getting an Editor In Chief, and it’s a move that’s sure to raise eyebrows not just in Silicon Valley, but in Manhattan media circles as well,” Joe Pompeo reports for Politico.

“Morning Media has learned that Apple has given the job — a new position at the Cupertino-based company — to Lauren Kern, one of New York magazine’s most high-ranking editors and a former deputy editor at The New York Times Magazine,” Pompeo reports. “It would seem to suggest that Apple has ambitions for its two-year-old aggregation app, which replaced the Apple Newsstand in 2015 but hasn’t really gained traction in a big way.”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Interesting choice that could open Apple News up for some additional criticism.

Already, the knives are out in some quarters: “By putting a former NY Mag executive editor at the helm, readers should be wary of the potential for a built-in bias in Apple News’ coverage,” NTK opines.

The best way to consume “news” is to cast a wide net.

As always, readers of “news” need to consider the sources and interpret what they are are being told accordingly. The more disparate sources you can find, the better. And we don’t mean different newspaper, network, website brands that are all owned by the same conglomerate. Determining the actual ownership of your “news” sources is an investment that requires a bit of time, but it is very enlightening. — MacDailyNews Take, June 17, 2015

P.S. In the Apple News app, just search for MacDailyNews and thanks for favoriting us!

Who’s going to ‘curate’ Apple News? – August 13, 2015
The Apple News app is doomed – July 30, 2015
The future’s not looking too bright for Apple News – July 30, 2015
Apple hiring team of journalists for News app; a ‘jaw-dropping’ development says publisher – June 15, 2015
Apple News is fast, responsive, enjoyable, and it might become your only news app – July 15, 2015
Apple News shows that Apple wants to bolster and profit from ads, not eliminate them – July 10, 2015
Apple News to have human curation – and that raises issues – June 15, 2015


      1. True but the end result is people choosing only sources they agree with — an echo chamber. A good news aggregator allows the user to pick his interests, business, region, whatever. Then the aggregator feeds ALL SIDES OF THE NEWS FROM AS MANY SOURCES AS POSSIBLE on those subjects, NOT source restrictions.

        Maybe it makes more sense to people if we refer to history instead of news. If you write a term paper about the great Sioux chief Crazy Horse, you would definitely get a failing grade if the only sources you referenced were articles written by a St. Louis newspaper, regardless of how objective you think that one source was. That one source probably didn’t include eyewitness accounts from Indian braves who fought at Little Big Horn, whose side of the story is critical to our understanding of the entire situation. Low Dog, White Cow, Water Man, Chief Gall, and others who were on the side of the natives have only recently been included in the educational texts and biographies that white men need to read to understand the whole situation before/during/after Crazy Horse accomplished his signature victory. To reject those inconvenient “fake” data points is to remain myopic and ignorant. This is a growing problem of modern society, visible everyday by blowhards in the White House and on this forum who are more interested in telling everyone else that they know best, when clearly they are only pushing one biased point of view.

        Why do so many people choose only one or a few publications for their current news? Apple News doesn’t solve the problem of people choosing intentional myopic data feeds.

        1. I had a simplistic idea about that.

          The problem with curated news lies in the unconscious biases of the curator, even if that curator is an algorithm. Self-curated news is even more problematic, owing to established traits of human nature, chiefly confirmation bias and selection bias. That’s what gives rise to the echo chamber effect, eerily reminiscent of mutually reinforced cult beliefs and jingoistic incantations. Members are protected, outsiders scorned.

          So my idea is, since aspects of tribal human nature can’t be nullified, tap into cultural diversity. — Translate news stories from countries around the world to even out the coverage of a single event. To put oneself in others’ shoes for ten minutes can give pause and relax the finger on the trigger.

          1. Exactly.

            While this is what I do, i.e., read from sources around the world each morning, I don’t speak/read several of those languages. Therefore, there is some inherent bias due to the people doing the translations. While I feel that this is minimal as the news sources would replace the translators if the translations were badly biased and distorted the articles, I must admit that I’m not getting the pure story.

    1. The question is not whether or not there is bias, but whether that bias is so strong that it leads to misrepresentation or outright falsification. The NYT has a history as a serious news organization with very high standards.

      Others – like Brietbart just manufacture news.

  1. I think the Apple News app is fantastic. Check it out, if you have not already. You can select your “favorite” media sources. Then the Apple News app feeds you an updated list of best feeds from those sites. (Don’t forget medial sources: Atlantic, Vox, and others) I think it is great. It is my primary source of news. And always up-to-date. Have found and read some very informative news articles this way.

    The only other media source I think is fabulous is “The Browser” dot com. They are a group out of London, I think. They have some excellent news articles — both new and old. 6 articles per month are free, after that they charge a modest fee: $20 per month, I think. It is well worth it. Although I told them I would very much prefer to pay using Apple Pay… they said maybe next year!

    Go Apple!

      1. Yes. The Economist. The Wall Street Journal. LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post. Plus others. No, I do not follow Fox …or Breitbart. ha ha ha News is one thing, ignorant propaganda quite another. Anyway, with Apple News you can pick whatever news sources you want.

        1. Re Fact or Fiction ?
          Anything that does not continuously fellate TrumpleThinSkin is considered biased by the low information ConservaTards who would not know a true Conservative if they bit them in the ass. When TrumpleThinSkin goes down in flames it will doubtlessly be credited to the mythical Liberal Media.

          Fox- now in 3rd place behind MSNBC and CNN- is not news, it is talk radio in drag as news. Breitbart is one step from the lonny farm and is more fact challenged than Paul Ryan’s phony budget math (Dynamic Scoring- i.e. wishful thinking).

          Back in my University days most of the Conservatives I knew were well read, thoughtful, reasonable and were open to change their opinion when presented with hard facts that disproved their initial take. Most today are poorly informed, incurious, closed-minded, unreasonable and rigidly cling to preconceived notions despite factual information that disproves their posit. Even if one disagreed with most Conservatives you could respect them, but that is all too rare today.

          1. DavGreg — totally agree with you.

            In my youth, conservatism did not imply racism, religious extremism (of the Christian sort), money-grubbing self-interest (more wealth for the wealthy and screw everyone else…), loathing of the environment, and a general hatred of mankind — at least anyone less fortunate than the alread rich.

            It all goes to highlight the inadequacy of our educational system. Everyone goes to school, yet few are truly educated; few students are taught to truly think. Logical reasoning. Critical thinking. Basic numeracy. Scientific method. And inferential statistics.

            FactChecker: Incidentally, a number of articles I have read in The Atlantic and Vox — I don’t keep track of them, I just read them when they strike me as interesting — appear well researched, well written, insightful or at least informative, and fair. I try to keep an open mind. It is important to read widely. I draw the line at stupidity and propaganda, however.

            1. The New York Times is Centrist as is the WaPo and most MSM. They tend to be socially liberal but adhere to the NeoLiberalism of Republicans and Third Way/DLC Democrats on Economics and tend to be hawkish on National Security and Foreign Policy. That may make Breitbart readers heads explode, but it is factual.

              Left would be The Nation, Mother Jones, The Progressive, etc.

              Right would be the Editorial Page of the Wall Street Journal, Human Events, National Review, etc.

              Nobody takes Fox Seriously.


            ‘…Is anyone surprised to learn that there is now documentation that the “media” has taken a remarkably negative attitude toward President Trump. Who documented it, ask you? Was it some right-wing blogger walking in lockstep with Mr. Trump? Surprisingly, answer I, it was none other than Harvard University. One can hardly accuse Harvard University of being a “right-wing” institution.

            [Sources: News coverage of Donald trump’s first 100 days, by Thomas E. Patterson]

            This paper examines Trump’s first 100 days in office, not through the lens of what he said about the news media, but what they reported about him (footnote).

            While most presidents feel they are unfairly treated by news media, Mr. Trump is correct when he says he has been targeted more than any president in recent history. According to the Harvard study Trump’s first 100 days were a landmark. The graph below is actually hard to believe! The news was “all Trump, all the time.” If one adds in Trump’s administration officials nearly 3/4th of the news was about Trump.”

            There was never any doubt that negative coverage of President Trump would be loud, vicious, inexhaustible, and irate. Anyone who still denies the heavy leftist bias of our “news” propaganda machine is delusional. Purposefully delusional.

            1. Well, if the news media were wrong, then I would agree with your assertion of them being in the “leftist cabal”. However, as the news appears not to be wrong, based on various accounts, then your rant seems specious. Unless you are suggesting that the CIA, FBI, and defecting Republicans (those with a brain) are themselves all part of the “leftist cabal” conspiracy. Which, frankly, would be hard to believe. Reality is a constraint! So adjust your thinking.

            2. Trump is about an inch from losing it.

              Bill Maher bet a Conservative Commentator and Trump supporter Boris Epshteyn a Gentleman’s Bet of 100 Rubles that Trump will not be President by the end of this year.

    1. Brilliant, you fell into the trap of single dimensional thinking, led around by the narratives that political operatives have steeped into you for years.

      I’m not even going to get into the debate about whether the media today is the “enemy of the people” or slanted. Such statements are bull shit, the people need to be informed if democracy is expected to work.

      So what news sources do you cite as reliable? My guess is you choose very few, if you are even willing to list them for us. Biases, intentional and unintentional, exist in all things. But it’s plainly obvious that for every democrat propaganda machine there is an equal and opposite republican one, and a thousand independent and foreign reporters that are highly objective.

      What sucks today is that with a microsecond attention span, we are seeing all forms of popular media cater to the laziest of thinking, appealing to emotion rather than deep investigation and reasoning. People choose their favorite talking head and are totally ignorant of all the other sides of the story. And it is hilarious to see people here defend serial liar Trump, who has been proven to lie up to 80% of the time, repeating bad information that he picks up in Fox News echo chambers, and only if it flatters him. This is why the Republican party can plan for a short and painful reign ruling all branches of the federal government. The executive is an ill informed idiot, with nepotistic advisors all under investigation and likely guilty of treason. Not that the Dimwit Democrats are any better. We can only hope that a fiscally responsible, socially moderate, militarily defensive, and honest 3rd party emerges to displace the two corrupt parties that have squandered America’s prosperity to the greed of Wall Street and war munitions profiteers.

      It’s a big complicated world. You could try to understand it and listen respectfully to others with unique perspectives. Or you can just be like the regular MDN political hacks and pull out the labels, declare everything “leftist”, “marxist” “socialist”, or worse. All that does is expose a self-centered faux news mindset, and play into the hand of the corrupt administration that is being proven to have links to Putin.

  2. Ah yes. More fluff. Less Substance.

    Hire more people to be senior management and throw lots of money at them while ignoring the core products.

  3. Apple has been wanting to replace Drudge, I’m fairly sure of it.

    More full screen takeovers and/or other kinds of funky redirects than on any site with my Apple devices. I don’t think advertisers are smarter on Drudge, I think Apple is trying to kill it.

    One thing they won’t be able to replicate is Drudge. So, hopefully Drudge can make the shift to a hyperlinked “mag” that can comparably be offered in Apple News.

  4. Once you allow others to select the “news and information” for you then you might as well give up claiming your ability to think and reason for yourself.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.