Notable links: July 10, 2026

Most Fridays, I share a handful of pieces that caught my eye at the intersection of technology, media, and society.

Did someone forward this to you? Subscribe for free.

Chicago Public Media launching community website — chicago.com — in the fall

In an increasingly AI-dominated information landscape, real trusted communities and relationships will be the way to build trust and loyalty — I’m convinced of it, and organizations like New_ Public agree. So it was exciting to see Chicago Public Media take a huge step towards building a community platform.

The site will include Chicago-area information, civic and cultural resources, community-sourced knowledge and opportunities for audience participation, the nonprofit said Wednesday. It will also curate headlines from the Sun-Times, WBEZ and other news sources.

This will be a familiar argument to regular readers:

For independent journalism to “truly service the public … we should have digital infrastructure that is also steered by public media companies,” Chicago Public Media CEO Melissa Bell said. The news industry “has ceded a lot of distribution to places like Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter, and I think that has done a disservice to centering civic discourse in a healthy way.”

We’ve seen other platforms release similar efforts effectively. The Newsmast Foundation builds community-first social media apps on open protocols for newsrooms that include The Bristol Cable and Find Out Media. Flipboard’s Surf platform powers curated social feeds, again built on open social web protocols, for the likes of 404 Media and Rolling Stone (as well as my own curated non-profit US news feed). And Canada’s Village Media serves 13 local social networks through its SPACES platform.

But this is the first time we’ve seen a single social platform rolled out by a public media company at this scale. Chicago Public Media was gifted the underlying chicago.com domain and will be rolling it out to neighborhoods and suburbs throughout the area. It sounds like each community will be highlighted (perhaps with its own feed), with an attached hub that covers the entire region.

Clearly, this is an experiment, but I’m delighted to see a public media innovator explore these ideas at this scale. I see it as vindication for the idea that building stronger community applications into the public media model is a path towards a more trusted future for local journalism. I’ll be watching very closely, and I’m curious to see who dives in next.

Your SaaS Metrics Are A Result, Not A Strategy

I still subscribe to sites like Crunchbase News from my time in startup-land; although it’s been a while since I’ve run the financial side of a business, I’m interested, and I know that I’ll run one again. I see stories like this and wonder: what would it look like for a newsroom to think this way? In startups, these metrics are known top to bottom, but I’ve rarely heard business teams talk about LTV (customer Life Time Value), CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost), or even ARR (Annual Recurring Revenue).

This may be happening in finance and fundraising teams, but the culture of talking about customers / donors in teams more widely often simply isn’t there: metrics aren't communicated, dashboards aren't made available, the concepts of the metrics themselves are not explained. Not everyone should be thinking about this all the time – the firewall between business and editorial is important to maintain – but in order to make sharp prioritization and experimentation decisions, the business side should be much more customer / donor focused than they often are.

Beyond that, this piece points out, rightly, that metrics are not strategy: they’re the measurable outcome of your strategy. They’re important tools to help you figure out cause and effect and improve your revenue efficiency, but they are not the underlying mechanism.

Interesting provocation here from the author:

“The Rule of 4 adds a simple durability check: ARR growth divided by annual customer churn should be above four. If it is low, growth may be hiding a leaking bucket.

[The board should ask:] are we growing on top of a loyal customer base, or replacing customers we should have kept?”

Growth in annual recurring revenue — the portion of your revenue that is from recurring customers like subscribers or monthly / annual donors — is expressed as a percentage. So is churn: what percentage of customers (paid subscribers, members, recurring donors) cancel their commitments and don’t return?

How many newsrooms have those numbers handy? What would it take to measure them? Which systems are missing that would let you do that?

There is so much that newsrooms — including non-profit publications — can learn from for-profit startups and other businesses. There’s a lot to be gained by sharing knowledge from those other domains. Figuring out which metrics successful businesses track and mapping the data gaps inside a newsroom is a good place to start.

How Kalshi infects the news

Kalshi’s deals with newsrooms seem to be paying dividends for the company:

“Since December CNBC has published 58 articles that do little more than advertise the existence of a Kalshi market related to a news event. […] Since April, CNBC has employed a dedicated reporter to produce these articles. CNBC also maintains a page on its website featuring Kalshi prediction markets selected by CNBC editors, along with its web coverage. […] In at least 22 cases, CNBC has written about Kalshi and not disclosed its financial conflict.”

CNN doesn’t pay for access, and instead is paid to exclusively promote Kalshi. CNBC reporting carries a disclosure which states that its relationship goes further: “CNBC and Kalshi have a commercial relationship that includes customer acquisition and a minority investment.” CNBC will gain financially if its coverage leads to more signups or a growth in Kalshi’s valuation. CNN’s is a simpler paid placement, but both deals are aggressive ways for Kalshi to compete with Polymarket, which has been making similar deals with newsrooms like Yahoo Finance.

This is even happening when markets are not significant enough to be newsworthy. As the New Yorker noted in December:

“When Enten lauded the benefits of analyzing betting odds, on air the other day, he failed to mention that only several hundred thousand dollars had been bet on that particular market. Kalshi’s odds provided good fodder for television, but, statistically speaking, they didn’t say much.”

It reminds me of the deals Twitter made with newsrooms relatively early in its life. Suddenly, almost out of nowhere, anchors read out tweets on the news, and shows promoted their official Twitter accounts over their websites. This didn’t happen organically: Twitter partnerships teams made deals behind the scenes to ensure their product was showcased well. It was one of the first times that a web startup impactfully executed on a media strategy, and startups have built on that pattern ever since.

Here, rather than serving a social network, money is changing hands for newsrooms to promote gambling markets — and in CNBC’s case, they will make more money if more people gamble. It’s obviously weirder, and the incentives here would pull at traditional newsroom ethics in an uncomfortable way even if adequate disclosures were published. This comes at an unfortunate time when trust in news is falling quickly, and newsrooms like CNN are increasingly seen as serving their owners rather than bastions of trustworthy reporting. These Kalshi deals are weird, and an obvious conflict of interest that will likely drive people to trust the news even less than they do today.

The Reuters Institute’s 2026 Digital News Report found that 70% of respondents think media owners and corporate parents exert undue influence on the news. As more of these sorts of deals are made, and as trust in news continues to decline, newsrooms are going to need to more overtly state that their coverage is free from this sort of sponsored content. Stronger, more transparent ethics statements, and louder conversations about how reporting decisions are made, will help some newsrooms to explain how they stand apart from these dynamics. In the meantime, CNN and CNBC are helping to drive trust in media into the gutter.

AI Content Is Everywhere on Social Media, Especially LinkedIn

This is one of the core effects of AI: even when people are not engaging with AI-generated content directly, it’s hard to avoid. Our feeds are increasingly full of AI slop.

“AI-generated content appeared across all social media platforms in our data set. The average AI rate across all scanned items was 13.8%, but specific rates varied by platform and item length. On four out of five platforms, longer content was more likely to be AI-generated than shortform content. Across all platforms, one in four longform items (25.72% of items over 250 words) were fully AI-generated.”

Specifically, long-form content on LinkedIn was 41% likely to be AI-generated, which shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s browsed LinkedIn lately. Medium was 31% likely and X was 29% likely. Open social web platforms like Bluesky and Mastodon don’t seem to have been a part of the dataset, but I think it would be foolish to assume they’re immune.

Some caveats here: the analysis was done by Pangram, which builds a browser extension and back-end tech that attempts to detect AI-generated content. That’s an imperfect process, and there are no tools that are completely reliable at making this distinction. False positives and false negatives have been common with these tools, although Pangram claims a 0.01% false positive rate. So take it with a pinch of salt, but it’s reasonable to assume that these numbers are directionally true.

All of this serves to drive trust in these platforms even lower. Increasingly, people on platforms like LinkedIn are being lazy writers and using AI to produce content that you don’t want to put the effort into. I generally think that if you can’t be bothered to write something, it’s not reasonable to ask people to read it; still, there may be some value in AI assisted writing, depending on the piece and how it was produced. (That kind of AI content, by the way, was not really measured by this test.) But AI has also led to a lot of outright spam making its way into people’s feeds in order to shamelessly build clout and advertising revenue.

Both things are making these platforms unusable, which in turn is driving people to smaller communities and group chats with people they know they can trust. I believe that’s going to be a big trend: AI leading to a noticeable drop in quality that drives people away from the platforms where it’s allowed to thrive. In that world, platforms that foster trusted relationships and communities will win.

Via 404 Media, which has characteristically great coverage of the story.