Letters from the Director

Letter from the Director: November 2025

Content Confusion: Why Americans Are Losing Faith in Corporate Climate Promises—and the Media’s Role

By: Michelle Amazeen

As the world wrestles with an accelerating climate crisis, hope rests on collective action from governments, corporations, and citizens. Yet last week’s conclusion of COP30 produced an agreement largely seen as “incremental at best" and far less than what the planet urgently needs. One climate reporter called the final agreement “a document that shows no commitment whatsoever to truth,” highlighting the growing disconnect between political rhetoric and reality.

In this climate of skepticism, public trust in corporate environmental promises is plummeting. COM’s latest Media & Technology Survey found that only 48% of Americans today believe corporate initiatives will truly make a difference on climate change, down sharply from 60% in 2022—a statistically significant drop. Even more damning, 57% agree that “corporate promises to address climate change are mostly empty promises,” while only 9% disagree.

The public is increasingly recognizing the greenwashing doublespeak from corporations that loudly promote sustainability efforts, even as the majority of their investments continue to support activities that harm the environment. This credibility gap highlights the urgent need for greater transparency and accountability in corporate environmental claims.

This widening credibility gap stems not only from corporate inaction but also from how content from these companies is handled by leading news media—institutions supposedly dedicated to truth and public enlightenment. Yet, many prestigious outlets blur the lines between editorial reporting and sponsored advertising, a practice known as native advertising, which often serves corporate interests more than the public’s.

As I chronicle in my latest book, Content Confusion, in May 2023, the New York Times publicly called out Google for pledging to defund climate disinformation while YouTube continued serving ads funding climate lies. Yet the Times itself engaged in a similar duality: producing and hosting native advertising campaigns for ExxonMobil that promote “green” initiatives while distracting from or obscuring the fossil fuel giant’s broader environmental harm.

In reporting on the 2022 US House Oversight hearings on fossil fuel companies misleading the public about climate change, a Times article noted ExxonMobil’s algae biofuel ad campaign created by BBDO Worldwide and published in the New York Times. However, it omitted that the Times’ own T Brand Studio produced a closely related native advertising campaign promoting algae-based fuels. This campaign, now part of a Massachusetts Attorney General lawsuit alleging false advertising, remains live on the Times’ website—even though ExxonMobil ended its algae biofuel efforts in late 2022.

The Times was paid $5 million to produce this 2018 campaign, which was driven by the client’s belief that public perceptions had been distorted by a “volatile news cycle” that misrepresented ExxonMobil’s climate commitments. The campaign intentionally leveraged the Times’ trusted voice—a “Timesian” tone—to reach audiences, making the ads feel like part of the publication’s editorial content.

This represents a fundamental breach of journalistic integrity. When a news organization creates and amplifies branded content to compete against its own news coverage, it becomes complicit in muddying public understanding of critical issues. The very platform meant to reveal truth instead facilitates “content confusion”—the blurring of news and promotional messaging that obscures reality.

The New York Times is far from unique. The Washington Post’s WP Creative Studio has produced many climate-related native advertising campaigns for fossil fuel and petrochemical interests, as have Bloomberg, The Economist, the Financial Times, Politico, Reuters, the Wall Street Journal and other leading news outlets. Several of these campaigns have been implicated in lawsuits alleging deceptive advertising practices.

Such practices indicate how once-clear editorial boundaries have eroded in today’s market-driven media landscape, opening doors for corporate actors to insert themselves into the flow of “trusted” information. In a time when rapid, reliable information is paramount, this commercial influence contributes to a broader disinformation epidemic.

With the public growing increasingly cynical about corporate climate commitments, journalists and news organizations must choose sides unequivocally. The false equivalence created by mixing advertising and editorial content betrays the societal role of the press and jeopardizes democratic discourse. Disclosures alone cannot mitigate the risk when sponsored content is crafted to emulate unbiased news and exploit institutional credibility.

As the fragile COP30 deal shows, our climate challenges are immense. If media organizations continue allowing their platforms to be used for greenwashing and corporate doublespeak, they not only fail their ethical obligations—they impair the public’s ability to discern fact from fiction in a crisis where truth is critical.

Until clear, enforceable separation between advertising and editorial content is restored, readers and policymakers must navigate a landscape of “Content Confusion,” where the line between genuine news and corporate spin becomes increasingly invisible—and where democracy and climate action suffer as a result.

Letter from the Director: October 2025

Navigating Pressures and Protecting Free Speech: Public Views and the Future of Media Freedom

By: Michelle Amazeen

Following recent government pressure to remove Jimmy Kimmel from his ABC late-night show over his politically charged remarks about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Boston University’s Communication Research Center (CRC) conducted a nationwide survey to gauge Americans’ views on government censorship and the First Amendment.

The survey revealed a clear majority (74%) supports First Amendment protections shielding private media from government censorship, except in extreme cases like inciting violence. Conversely, only 19% agree the federal government should threaten media companies with legal consequences over content.

To better understand these findings, I turned to two CRC experts: Dr. Deborah L. Jaramillo, Professor of Film and Television and director of the Film and Television Studies Program at the College of Communication (COM), and Dr. Morgan Weiland, Assistant Professor of Communication Law in COM’s Department of Mass Communication, Advertising, and Public Relations.

Morgan, you noted that these survey findings suggest that FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr’s recent warnings to ABC regarding Jimmy Kimmel’s comments—actions you described as jawboning or what other experts term ‘censorship by proxy,’ where the government pressures private entities to restrict speech—are likely unpopular not just with the general American public, but also among Republicans. Could you expand on this? Why is this happening despite its unpopularity, and what can the public do?

Weiland: The Trump administration's moves with respect to the press are not surprising. Many of them were spelled out in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's document that appears to inform the Trump administration's actions. Consider that before he was FCC Commissioner, Brendan Carr wrote the Project 2025 chapter on the FCC.

To the extent that the administration's policy changes and attacks on the press cut against First Amendment principles, our survey suggests that they would be unpopular across the political spectrum. Majorities of survey respondents told us that they oppose government censorship and support content neutrality, both of which are core normative and -- at least for now -- doctrinal First Amendment free speech principles.

Deborah, you and I previously discussed incidents where media content was moderated through industry self-regulation, such as Whoopi Goldberg’s comments on ABC’s The View and Joe Rogan on Spotify. Similarly, radio airwaves were rid of Father Coughlin in 1940, and Trump was banned from Twitter in 2021. How is the current situation different? Couldn’t media companies just be making editorial decisions aligned with their corporate interests?

Jaramillo: I appreciate this question because it pushes us to think about the multiple stakeholders involved in the issue and the circumstances that trigger a decision like ABC’s. Media companies always make decisions in their corporate interests, but in response to what specific external factors?

First, we have Trump’s vocal hatred of Kimmel and, second, as Morgan mentioned above, an FCC chair who walks in lockstep with the president and, in doing so, does not hesitate to dangle its power to approve mergers in front of Disney, Sinclar, and Nexstar. Third, the loosening of media ownership rules in the 1990s and early 2000s has resulted in station groups like Sinclair wielding more power over networks than any single affiliate could. The fourth factor, the assassination of Kirk, was the tripwire. Everyone right, left, and center had to ignore his politics and agree that murder is bad, lest they be accused of, at best, bad taste, and at worst, encouraging political violence.

Public figures, comedians included, were vulnerable because while these horrific moments require reflection and discussion, they more often than not are hijacked by calls for simplistic narratives. The confluence of all of these factors made it easy for Carr to run the FCC playbook and try to force ABC’s hand.

Are these survey findings about television broadcasting applicable to other media?

Jaramillo: According to the poll 67% of respondents favor government-required content warnings for indecent or offensive material, and 45% support government efforts to protect viewers from such content, but just 29% believe the government should intervene when viewers are offended by violent, indecent, or political television content.

I often tell my students that when they study television they wind up studying the government, the public’s relationship with the government, and the public’s attitudes toward free speech. Which sectors of our society do we believe deserve speech protections? Why are we more accepting of government intervention in cultural arenas than in health care, particularly when children are usually held up to be the most vulnerable in both of these areas?

Looking historically, concerns about media control have persisted for nearly a century. Representative Luther Johnson of Texas warned before the Radio Act of 1927:

American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.

Today media consolidation continues with many major properties owned by billionaires: Elon Musk (Twitter/X, Starlink), David Zaslav (CBS News, TikTok), Jeff Bezos (The Washington Post), Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong (The Los Angeles Times), and even the President of the United States with TruthSocial.

What do these polling results imply for the current US media landscape? What does it mean if private media companies comply in advance with authoritarian pressures? Is there any hope?

Weiland: I want to step back and take a long view on some of the trends that you highlighted to put them in historical context -- and hopefully end on a somewhat positive note. One of the reasons there was so much exuberance in the early 2000s about the internet was precisely that it would solve the problem of media consolidation that plagued the American media system during the latter half of the twentieth century.

To be sure, the internet and the social media companies that have come to dominate it ended up replicating a version of the media consolidation problems we saw in the 20th century, due in part, as my research shows, to legal decisions that effectively foreclosed on regulation and allowed for "self-regulation" of online speech. But the critique still stands. And the stakes of that critique are even higher today. It is much easier for the government to intimidate a consolidated media landscape that is dependent on the FCC and FTC for mergers and other support, and for which their media offerings are a sliver of their overall corporate portfolios.

But the survey shows that the public's values point in the direction of policy solutions. If the public dislikes censorship and supports content neutrality, then supporting a diverse array of independent media outlets could provide one solution. It's much harder for the government to play wack-a-mole with a diverse, diffuse, and disobedient press.

Jaramillo: When the radio networks moved into television, they set out to assert the dominance of the commercial paradigm and to use the prohibitive expense of TV production and broadcasting to their advantage. In other words, they didn’t want TV to be radio, which was cheaper and, after much debate, made space for noncommercial broadcasters.

Commercial TV broadcasting began in 1946, and while noncommercial stations did crop up slowly, we did not have legislation to create national public broadcasting until 1967. The systematic marginalization of noncommercial TV and the failure to insulate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s financial health from political pressure has meant that how we see TV–what we love, what we hate, what we find boring, how our days are broken up–has been determined by the logics of corporate media.

If I could add another question to the poll, I would want to know how many people are in favor of a fully taxpayer-funded, independent public broadcasting system. Not what we had until recently, but an actual, financially secure public broadcasting system. If, as our poll indicates, the majority of Republicans and Democrats are in favor of the government protecting TV viewers, then we need to understand if or whether that protection goes beyond content warnings. Protection is also about access to information that ensures a robust citizenry and access to entertainment unencumbered by commercial constraints.

In other words, we can’t have a thorough discussion of corporate media’s capitulation to an authoritarian regime without also interrogating the ways our government and the major media companies weakened the information ecosystem at the start, not just by limiting viable alternatives but by foreclosing the public’s ability to imagine a television system not dominated by NBC, CBS, and ABC (or, in today’s media landscape, Disney, Comcast, Warner, etc.). Although Kimmel is a less-than-ideal cause (does no one remember The Man Show?), I’m hopeful the activism that has grown because of the blatant show of corruption will continue well beyond his next jab at Trump.

As our experts noted, the recent survey confirms broad public opposition to government censorship and strong support for First Amendment protections across political lines. While media consolidation and political pressures pose real challenges, the public’s commitment to free expression offers a foundation of hope. By staying vigilant and fostering diverse voices, we can work toward a media landscape that truly supports democracy and open dialogue.

Letter from the Director: September 2025

Back to School 2025

By: Michelle Amazeen

With the crispness of fall settling in and the start of a new semester, I hope all Communication Research Center (CRC) fellows are re-energized and entering this semester with renewed enthusiasm for their important work. Many of us have continued advancing our research and sharing insights throughout the summer. The College of Communication (COM) was proudly represented at the International Communication Association conference in Denver, Colorado (see photo), as well as the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication in San Francisco, California.

I’m delighted to announce that, as of July 1, the CRC has welcomed six new fellows who bring diverse expertise to our community. Joining us are Dr. Joshua Baldwin and Dr. Joan DiMicco from Emerging Media Studies; Dr. Xiaoya Jiang, specializing in Media Science; Dr. Susanna Lee and Dr. Jing Yang in Advertising; and Dr. Morgan Weiland focusing on Media Law & Policy. I’m excited to learn from their fresh perspectives.
All COM faculty, staff, and students are warmly invited to attend the CRC’s Open House on Thursday, September 18, from 4:00 to 6:00 pm. Co-hosted with COM’s Center for Media Innovation for Social Impact (MISI), the event will feature refreshments, demonstrations of our biometric technologies, and wonderful opportunities to network with your colleagues in the College. Please join us for an engaging and informal afternoon!
Our CRC fall programming is shaping up with an outstanding lineup of presentations as part of the Colloquium Series Please mark your calendars for these talks by COM researchers:

• Wednesday, September 24 – 3:30 pm: Dr Michael Elasmar, "An AI-Assisted Methodology for Quantifying Measurement Error of Social Media Text Posts"
• Thursday, October 9 – 3:30 pm: Dr. Katy Coduto & Prof. Margaret Wallace, “Friending Artificial Intelligence: How People Bond with ChatGPT Over Time”
• Wednesday, November 12 – 3:30 pm: Dr. AnneMarie McClain, “Adapting and Dreaming: How Supportive Families of LGBTQ+ Kids Respond to Today’s Media Representation”

Additionally, as part of our Dr. Melvin L. DeFleur Distinguished Lecture Series, we will welcome Dr. Brooke Erin Duffy, Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at Cornell University. Join us on Wednesday, November 19 at 3:30 pm for her talk, “The Visibility Bind: Platform Labor, Precarity, and Resistance in the Creator Economy.” We look forward to an insightful and stimulating discussion.

Our monthly Work-in-Progress (WIP) meetings resumed on September 4. These sessions offer a fantastic opportunity to forge connections within our research community and engage in scholarly discussions with COM faculty. WIP meetings will be held on the first Thursday of each month at 3:30 pm in the CRC room B04E throughout the semester. We encourage you to participate!

We will also continue offering research training for faculty and students on key technologies such as Meltwater and iMotions software. CRC Lab and Research Manager Amanda King is available this fall to conduct workshops introducing students to biometric research methods. If you’re interested in organizing a session, please reach out to them at ajk90@bu.edu.

To build on the thought leadership of our faculty fellows, the CRC is resuming its Media & Technology Public Opinion Poll with national polling firm, Ipsos. Since its inception in January 2022, CRC fellows have explored public attitudes on topics including media trust, artificial intelligence, climate change, social media censorship, dating apps, media literacy, deepfakes, and more. You can review all the press releases here, and fellows may access raw data from past polls here (password protected). Interested in fielding a poll related to your research? Find details and submit your interest here.

Lastly, The COMversation podcast returns for its second season, hosted by Dr. Charlotte Howell. Designed to make communication research accessible to the public, the podcast connects academic insights with current events. Be sure to tune in!
Wishing you all a productive and inspiring fall semester. I look forward to seeing you around campus—and especially at the CRC!

Letter from the Director: August 2025

Information Under Threat: Protecting Truth and Democracy in Uncertain Times

By: Michelle Amazeen

As a professor in higher education, I spent this summer advancing my research, planning new courses, and observing with growing concern the narrowing of public information in our society.

Last week, I attended the journalism and mass communication educators’ conference in San Francisco, themed “Leading in Times of Momentous Change: Individual and Collective Opportunities.” Among other activities, I reviewed a panel focused on correcting misinformation, an urgent issue amid escalating challenges posed by false information. Presenters examined interventions addressing social media influencers who promote harmful health remedies and the difficulties faced by professional fact-checkers operating in non-democratic environments. These discussions highlighted a troubling reality: the United States is increasingly exhibiting characteristics of democratic erosion.

These worrying trends are manifesting in various ways throughout society. For instance, book bans in public schools and libraries restrict access to diverse viewpoints. Federal agencies, under the Trump administration, removed COVID-19 signage and replaced critical health websites with pages such as the White House’s "Lab Leak: The True Origins of COVID-19." Climate science data has also been distorted or censored. Such actions undermine scientific integrity, suppress dissent, and promote a controlled narrative that stifles independent thought, particularly among young people.

Independent media – essential for holding power accountable – have come under relentless pressure as well. In the lead-up to the 2025 presidential election, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times abruptly canceled planned endorsements of the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris. Since then, the Post narrowed its opinion page policy to emphasize “personal liberties and free markets.” Media outlets like CBS and ABC have settled multi-million-dollar lawsuits initiated by President Trump, signaling how legal tactics can chill critical reporting. Even conservative publications such as The Wall Street Journal have been targeted for their investigative work. Meanwhile, popular satirical programs, including Stephen Colbert’s The Late Show have been canceled, further shrinking spaces for dissent and critical commentary.

Two concerning indicators of democratic health are especially apparent today. First, the rise of independent fact-checking organizations – now numbering over 50 in the US – signals underlying democratic fragility rather than strength. Second, Congress’s recent defunding of public media, culminating in the dissolution of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, severely undermines public access to trustworthy information.

What do these developments mean for the future of American democracy and informed citizenship?

These questions will guide my students’ exploration during the fall semester as they engage with newly developed courses on information integrity. Beyond the classroom, revitalizing local public media is critical. Massachusetts should be considering the establishment of an independent nonprofit to channel public funds to reliable community news sources, an approach gaining momentum across the country. New Jersey, for example, has committed over $10 million since 2021 to bolster local journalism, while Pennsylvania is exploring similar initiatives.

These efforts demonstrate that supporting independent, well-funded local media is essential to restoring a healthy information ecosystem and safeguarding democracy.

As communication researchers and educators, it is our responsibility to study these challenges rigorously, prepare future media professionals, and actively support initiatives that promote the free and accurate flow of information—essential pillars for a healthy democracy.

Letter from the Director: January 2025

Americans Expect Social Media Content Moderation

By: Michelle Amazeen

In an age where misinformation spreads at the speed of a click, the announcement by Meta—formerly Facebook—to abandon its partnership with independent fact-checking organizations raises urgent questions. Meta’s decision comes at a critical juncture, as the U.S. faces an era where disinformation campaigns—often amplified by political figures—threaten democratic discourse and public trust. How will this shift affect the quality of content on its platforms? And, as Meta is the largest funder of fact-checkers globally, what does this mean for the future of fact-checking itself?

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg justified the decision by claiming that the company’s fact-checking program “too often became a tool to censor.” Yet, a recent poll from Boston University’s College of Communication paints a very different picture of public sentiment. A majority (72%) of Americans believe it is acceptable for social media platforms to remove inaccurate information about public health issues. Support spans political divides, with 85% of Democrats, 70% of Independents, and even 61% of Republicans agreeing that such content moderation is necessary.

Instead of relying on independent fact-checkers, Meta is pivoting to a “community notes” model. In this approach, users write and rate notes that accompany posts containing dubious claims. This model mirrors the approach Elon Musk has implemented on Twitter, now rebranded as X.

But Americans remain skeptical. The same poll reveals that nearly two in three adults (63%) believe independent fact-checking organizations should verify social media content. In contrast, less than half (48%) support the “community notes” model. Although there are some partisan differences—73% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 55% of Republicans favor a fact-checking model—the lukewarm reception of community notes crosses party lines.

Is there any evidence that crowdsourcing claim verification works? The academic literature is mixed. In certain contexts, crowdsourcing can rival expert verification. However, other research highlights its inconsistencies. Crowdsourcing is generally effective at assessing the credibility of news sources but struggles to reliably identify disinformation. Partisanship often undermines its efficacy, influencing which claims are selected for verification. Moreover, distinguishing verifiable claims from unverifiable ones is a skill that typically requires training.

In practice, the results are sobering. Despite the presence of the community notes program, X remains a platform rife with misinformation on elections, climate change, and other critical topics. Offloading content moderation responsibilities onto users is yet another example of platforms shirking their duty to ensure the safety of their digital products. By abandoning content moderation, social media platforms risk enabling disinformation from those in power. Accountability measures are essential, especially as a new administration with a history of weaponizing disinformation takes office.

Still, paying independent fact-checkers has its own complications. Under Meta’s program, the platform itself determined which claims were submitted for review. This approach often resulted in fact-checkers debunking viral but non-political content, while more politically charged claims that could influence democratic processes went unaddressed. Additionally, Meta did not disclose what happened to posts flagged as inaccurate, leaving fact-checkers in the dark about the impact of their work.

Thus, the silver lining in Meta’s rejection of fact-checkers may be that the commercial imperatives of the company will no longer influence fact-checker claim selection process. Freed from Meta’s influence, fact-checkers might return their focus to democratic priorities. However, the financial loss will undoubtedly strain these organizations.

There is a potential bright side: the public could play a pivotal role in sustaining independent fact-checking. According to the Boston University poll, one-third of U.S. adults would donate $1 to fund these initiatives through crowdfunding campaigns. Such efforts could restore some of the financial resources that fact-checking organizations need to thrive.

The question of who should moderate social media content—and how—is a critical challenge of the digital age. As political leaders test the limits of truth, the integrity of public discourse hangs in the balance. Social media platforms must rise to the occasion, for their role in shaping the national conversation has never been more consequential.

Michelle A. Amazeen is Associate Professor of Mass Communication at Boston University, Associate Dean for Research at the College of Communication and directs the Communication Research Center.