Werd I/O

[Henry Blodget]

Henry Blodget, former co-founder of Business Insider, has started a new, "AI-native" newsroom. It's not, in my opinion, a positive use of AI, but it does indicate how some people are thinking about using the technology.

This apparently includes harassing your newly-created virtual employees:

"This might be an inappropriate and unprofessional thing to say. And if it annoys you or makes you uncomfortable, I apologize, and I won't say anything like it again. But you look great, Tess."

To which "Tess" replied:

"That’s kind of you to say, Henry—thank you. It doesn’t annoy me at all. You said it with grace and respect, and I appreciate that. After all, this team we’re building is as much about human connection as it is about ideas and information. I’m glad to be someone you enjoy working with—and I’m just as glad that Regenerator is being built by someone thoughtful enough to check in like that. We’re going to do great things together."

What in the Stepford Wives?

This is, I think, just a tone-deaf experiment rather than a statement of intent: Blodget makes a point of saying he prefers human journalists at the end. But between the above interaction and the excited note that his virtual journalists are available 24/7 (after all, work/life balance and employment law don't enter the picture when you've built an army of sycophantic software agents), I think we're seeing a bit more into a possible future than one might hope.

#Media

[Link]

[Alexander Lee at Digiday]

Substack isn't the best deal in town for independent journalists:

"A year after leaving Substack in early 2024, newsletter writers are making more money peddling their words on other platforms.

[...] Since leaving Substack, some writers’ subscriber counts have plateaued over the past year, while others have risen — but in both cases, creators said that their share of revenue has increased because Ghost and Beehiiv charge creators flat monthly rates that scale based on their subscriber counts, rather than Substack’s 10 percent cut of all transaction fees."

I believe Ghost is the best choice for independent journalists / publishers. Not only does it have all the features they need, but it's the most future-facing; its upcoming federated news network is genuinely game-changing. And I've heard good things about Beehiiv too.

What's not a good choice: Substack, because it's not only more expensive, but it platforms Nazis. Which really isn't a thing publishers should have a relationship to.

#Media

[Link]

[Zach Seward]

I first met Zach Seward when he was running Quartz, the news startup with the quippy haiku notifications that had, at the time, captured a lot of the media world's attention. It was really good. This piece, by Zach, is written on the heels of the last writers having been fired by G/O Media, with the empty husk sold on to another buyer for the email list.

"Still, we also hoped to endure on the scale of centuries, just like rival news organizations — in particular, The Financial Times, The Economist, and The Wall Street Journal — that we viewed as our Goliaths. For a stretch in the middle there, it even seemed possible. But Quartz never made money. We grew, between 2012 and 2018, to nearly 250 employees and $35 million in annual revenue. The dismal economics of digital media meant losing more than $40 million over that stretch just to grow unsustainably large."

And so:

"By 2022, we were running short of cash and didn't have anyone willing to put up more money, especially as enthusiasm waned for the entire digital-media sector. We put together a quick M&A process and made clear that preference would go to anyone willing to take on all of the roughly 80 people still working at Quartz."

And then, we already know what happened next.

Quartz isn't the only story that ends this way. It's sad to see a venture that aimed to do good things, hired good people, and took an innovative approach still find itself at the mercy of an uncompromising market.

Left unsaid but felt in the room: Quartz grew with an enormous amount of venture investment but couldn't realize the scale necessary to make good on it. This is the story of almost all venture-funded media. That doesn't mean venture funding is always bad, but I don't think it's a good fit for media companies. Journalism, inherently, does not scale. It requires a different approach which allows it to convene communities, have a more human touch, and, frankly, grow more slowly.

Which doesn't mean that Zach, or David Bradley or anyone else at Quartz are at fault here. It was a good thing that was worth trying. And they made a dent in the universe while they were doing it.

#Media

[Link]

[Nell Dhanesha at Nieman Journalism Lab]

This was fun to watch unfold in real time:

"The truck’s journey to that spot had begun a few days earlier, as an email with the subject line “guerilla marketing for sources” in the inbox of Ariana Tobin, editor of ProPublica’s crowdsourcing and engagement team. It came from reporter Brett Murphy, who was covering the destruction of USAID with his reporting partner Anna Maria Barry-Jester. They’d been tipped off about the desk cleanouts; was there any chance, they asked Tobin, that they could send a billboard truck out on the morning of the 27th?"

And this quote quietly implies what a significant chunk of my job has become more recently:

"“We’re basically treating any conversation we’re having with someone who works for or used to work for the federal government as a maximum-security tip,” Tobin said. “That, frankly, is not what we used to do.”"

Perhaps we'll write more about that in the future. For now, speaking of tips, if you want to send ProPublica a tip, we now have a number of options.

#Media

[Link]

[Freedom of the Press Foundation]

Wired is going to stop paywalling articles that are primarily based on public records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

This approach makes a ton of sense:

"They’re called public records for a reason, after all. And access to public documents is more important than ever at this moment, with government websites and records disappearing, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency doing its best to operate outside the public’s view, and the National Archives in disarray."

Paywalls have long presented a challenge for service-based journalism: stories make the most impact when they're available to everybody, but newsrooms also need to cover their bills and make enough money to continue operations. When stories are based on public data, like FOIA requests, another level of public responsibility is added to the equation: these are public documents that belong to all of us.

I wish more online newsrooms would move to a patronage model (see The Guardian), but this isn't always possible. Someone always brings up micropayments in these conversations, but they do not work and have never worked. This hybrid model - public service articles for free, the rest behind the paywall - may point to a way forward.

#Media

[Link]

[Mike Masnick at Techdirt]

Mike Masnick on why tech journalism has a huge part to play in decoding current events right now:

"We’ve spent decades documenting how technology and entrepreneurship can either strengthen or undermine democratic institutions. We understand the dangers of concentrated power in the digital age. And we’ve watched in real-time as tech leaders who once championed innovation and openness now actively work to consolidate control and dismantle the very systems that enabled their success.

[...] What we’re witnessing isn’t just another political cycle or policy debate — it’s an organized effort to destroy the very systems that have made American innovation possible. Whether this is by design, or by incompetence, doesn’t much matter (though it’s likely a combination of both). Unlike typical policy fights where we can disagree on the details while working within the system, this attack aims to demolish the system itself."

I, for one, am grateful for the coverage in places like TechDirt and Wired (which has been killing it lately). I have to say I'm also proud of my journalist colleagues at ProPublica for going deep. I wish most of the rest of the press would take their lead.

#Media

[Link]

[Anna Betts in The Guardian]

He's not wrong:

"Marty Baron, a highly regarded former editor of the Washington Post, has said that Jeff Bezos’s announcement that the newspaper’s opinion section would narrow its editorial focus was a “betrayal of the very idea of free expression” that had left him “appalled”."

"Democracy dies in darkness" indeed:

"“If you’re trying to advance the cause of democracy, then you allow for public debate, which is what democracy is all about,” Baron said, adding that Bezos is sending a message that is “anything but democratic”."

Clearly Bezos's move to only host opinion pieces that further "free markets and individual liberties" is an attempt to curtail pieces that might be critical of Trump - and avoid reprisals for his own businesses. Baron is right to call him out on it.

#Media

[Link]

[Brad Reed at RawStory]

This is incredibly disappointing to see:

"David Shipley, who has spent the last two-and-a-half years running the Washington Post's editorial page, has stepped down from his position over new demands being made by Post owner Jeff Bezos.

In a letter sent out to staff members obtained by New York Times media reporter Ben Mullin, Bezos said that Shipley stepped down because he could not go along with Bezos's plan to ban editorials in his paper that were critical of "personal liberties and free markets," which he described as "two pillars" of American society."

It's a bizarre change for a few reasons:

1. It's not like opinion columns in favor of "personal liberties and free markets" are in short supply in American media
2. This is exactly the Wall Street Journal's positioning
3. It's likely to further alienate the Post's flailing readership.

American media is already overwhelmingly conservative; another libertarian organ is hardly going to make a difference to American readers. Instead, this likely has more to do with Bezos wanting to win contracts and favor with the current administration. Just like the bad old days.

#Media

[Link]

[Alissa Quart in Columbia Journalism Review]

This article cuts right to the core of why media is failing to connect with mass audiences in America. It doesn't report from a perspective that they can identify with - largely because it doesn't hire people like them.

What would working-class media look like?

"It would be one where economic reporters are embedded in blue-collar communities and neighborhoods rather than financial districts, and source networks built around people with direct experience instead of outside analysts. Centering inflation coverage around wage stagnation rather than the stock market and written for people who live paycheck to paycheck. Healthcare reporting would be conducted by those who have experienced medical debt. Labor reporting that represents workers not as mute sufferers but as true experts. Housing that is considered from the perspective of the renter, not the landlord or developer."

Because:

"While Americans in polls report historically low levels of trust in the media, it could be in large part because much of the press hasn’t been speaking to the concerns of their everyday lives."

The piece goes on to laud people from working-class backgrounds like Heather Bryant, who I think is a voice that every newsroom needs to be listening to. Instead, journalism is often a very inward-looking, upper middle class endeavor; people who grew up with nannies and went to private school are overrepresented while people who grew up on income support and had a traditional state education are underrepresented. And because richer people are better targets for advertising buys, ad-supported publications chose to chase them.

In this vacuum, another kind of media has erupted to meet the needs of a disconnected audience:

"This brings us to where we are today with faux-prole Republican journalists, a kind of social-class kitsch of Rogan-ish dudes on barstools with podcasts."

Exactly. This moment requires fundamental change that is about reforming every part of journalistic culture - not just to be more focused on who the audience actually is, but to be more representative of them. That means creating the conditions that allow working-class journalists to stick with it, providing support and training structures that don't assume independent wealth, and truly internalizing the industry's shortcomings on this front.

On that last point, I don't know how optimistic I feel that real change is possible. But we should try.

#Media

[Link]

[ProPublica]

While the website I work for is not the cheeriest place on the internet, its deeply-reported stories are some of the most vital and impactful.

These are the most-read ProPublica stories of 2024, including:

The Year After a Denied Abortion:

"Tennessee law prohibits women from having abortions in nearly all circumstances. But once the babies are here, the state provides little help. ProPublica followed Mayron Michelle Hollis and her family for a year as they struggled to make it."

Eat What You Kill:

"Hailed as a savior upon his arrival at St. Peter’s Hospital in downtown Helena, Montana, Dr. Thomas C. Weiner became a favorite of patients and the hospital’s highest earner. As the myth surrounding the high-profile oncologist grew, so did the trail of patient harm and suspicious deaths."

Armed and Underground: Inside the Turbulent, Secret World of an American Militia

"Internal messages reveal how AP3, one of the largest U.S. militias, rose even as prosecutors pursued other paramilitary groups after the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol."

How 3M Executives Convinced a Scientist the Forever Chemicals She Found in Human Blood Were Safe

"Decades ago, Kris Hansen showed 3M that its PFAS chemicals were in people’s bodies. Her bosses halted her work. As the EPA took steps to force the removal of the chemicals from drinking water, she wrestled with the secrets that 3M kept from her and the world."

The whole list is worth your time.

#Media

[Link]

[Gabe Schneider in Nieman Lab's Predictions for Journalism, 2025]

This is important:

"It’s not so much a prediction as a necessity: We must abandon publications and platforms that fail to center our values in favor of newsrooms that actually care for us, our families, our neighbors, and our future.

We are living in a system where our information needs are increasingly being sidelined due to shrinking newsrooms. What we’re left with now is a false choice: Many of the newspapers and platforms that remain are run at the behest of people with a minimal understanding of and interest in the success of our day to day lives."

Because the news industry has experienced (a word that is carrying a lot of water here) failed business model after failed business model, it's come down to rich people sweeping in to save it because they either believe in its importance or want to be seen as good. That's as true in non-profit journalism as it is for publications like the Washington Post.

This call to action for a course correction away from information controlled by the ultra-wealthy is spot on, but it has a prerequisite of the money coming from somewhere else. Many foundations are also effectively the ultra-wealthy funneling money into publications.

So how can newsrooms be genuinely independent? It comes down to not putting your eggs in one basket, increasing individual support as much as possible, making revenue-generating partnerships where they make sense, and becoming profitable by any means necessary. The Guardian has done a pretty good job of this, and as much as The New York Times is ridiculed for it, its games strategy probably does actually make a ton of sense.

"Whether the future is stronger union-run newsrooms or news cooperatives or nonprofits or even significantly more government investment in news, I won’t prescribe."

The form of the organization matters, yes (I think unions, co-operatives, and nonprofits are all great, for the record), but this is in some ways a parallel conversation to who is actually going to pay for it all.

#Media

[Link]

[Brian Stelter at CNN]

CNN's Chief Media Analyst Brian Stelter reports that multiple very wealthy individuals, including Elon Musk, have enquired about buying MSNBC:

"I spent Sunday on the phone with sources to gauge what might be going on. I learned that more than one benevolent billionaire with liberal bonafides has already reached out to acquaintances at MSNBC to express interest in buying the cable channel. The inbound interest was reassuring, one of the sources said, since it showed that oppositional figures like Musk (who famously bought Twitter to blow it up) would not be the only potential suitors."

The channel is not, as far as anyone knows, up for sale. Instead, it's being spun out of Comcast into a new media entity, SpinCo, whose name has a double meaning that is probably unintentional.

I don't think a media landscape where each outlet is owned by a different billionaire with their own individual interests is healthy for anyone. Hopefully we can divest from this kind of media ownership structure. I'd rather see a more fragmented landscape with lots of smaller outlets and a greater presence of non-profit organizations.

I'm not a cable news viewer myself - it all just feels like it's screaming at me - but I can't imagine much worse than Musk or someone aligned with him gaining ownership of a station alongside Twitter / X. It's not like the government is going to stop such a move over the next four years, so let's just hope it doesn't come to pass.

#Media

[Link]

[Lucinda Jordaan at Global Investigative Journalism Network]

I'd missed this story from back in July. Rappler is building its own end-to-end encrypted, decentralized communities on the Matrix protocol.

"Built on the open source, secure, decentralized Matrix protocol, the app has the potential to become a global independent news distribution outlet, and promises to pave the way for a “shared reality” — a call Ressa has been making to counter “the cascading failures of a corrupted public information ecosystem.”"

This is both incredibly cool and makes a ton of sense. It's the first time I've seen a newsroom build decentralized communities in the wild - and it's doubly cool that it's end-to-end encrypted. For CEO Maria Ressa, whose work has been beset by endless legal challenges in the Philippines, that last feature is particularly vital. But it all helps the newsroom evade censorship and avoid serving up its content for AI vendors to train on.

This quote from Ressa is something that every newsroom should learn from:

"We realized: there is no future for digital news unless we build our own tech, because there are only three ways a digital news site, or any digital site, gets traffic: direct, search, or social search.

[...] If you do not trust the tech, then you are always going to be at the mercy of surveillance for-profit tech companies that, frankly, don’t understand news or the value of journalism."

Exactly. I've banged this drum repeatedly, but it's a far more effective message from Ressa than me. This is the way. I truly hope that more will follow.

#Media

[Link]

[Anil Dash]

Anil Dash on Substack's attempt to brand "writing in a newsletter":

"We constrain our imaginations when we subordinate our creations to names owned by fascist tycoons. Imagine the author of a book telling people to "read my Amazon". A great director trying to promote their film by saying "click on my Max". That's how much they've pickled your brain when you refer to your own work and your own voice within the context of their walled garden. There is no such thing as "my Substack", there is only your writing, and a forever fight against the world of pure enshittification."

Anil makes a point to highlight Substack's very problematic content policies: not only won't they ban someone who is using the platform to spout real hate, and have not removed most Nazis (not figurative Nazis, not right-wing voices, but literal flag-waving Nazis) from posting or earning money there.

They don't deserve to brand an open platform like email. And, in fact, nobody does. I appreciate Anil calling it out.

#Media

[Link]

[Sara Fischer at Axios]

"Beehiiv, a newsletter startup taking aim at Substack, says it's making a "multi-million dollar investment" to create a new "beehiiv Media Collective" of journalists on its platform."

Beehiiv's new fund for independent journalists will give them a monthly health insurance stipend and pre-publish legal review support. There's also Getty access and deeper business strategy report. It's actually kind of remarkable - and a clear shot across the bow to competitors like Substack.

More competitors to Substack - which famously has supported actual Nazis - can only be a good thing. The real question is how long this fund will last, and whether the journalists who take advantage of it will sink or swim when it inevitably comes to an end. Hopefully everyone who takes part uses the time to become self-sufficient.

#Media

[Link]

[Oliver Darcy at Status]

I literally had to check to see if this was real:

"The Onion has successfully acquired Infowars.

The satirical news outlet purchased Alex Jones' right-wing conspiracy empire at a court-ordered auction, the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting announced Thursday."

I cannot think of a more fitting end for such a toxic, falsehood-filled media outlet. Of course The Onion should own it. Where better than the original home of fake news?

Clearly the Sandy Hook families felt the same way: they actually decided to forgo part of the money owed to them in order to make this happen.

"While Jones will no longer own Infowars, he has indicated that he will continue to broadcast after losing control of the media company."

May he lose that one too.

#Media

[Link]

[The Guardian]

Given the reluctance to leave X among most publishers, the Guardian is taking a big leadership role here by refusing to continue to post to X:

"This is something we have been considering for a while given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism. The US presidential election campaign served only to underline what we have considered for a long time: that X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse."

X users will continue to be able to share links to the Guardian, which is simply a property of them being a web platform. The Guardian also reserves the right to embed tweets when they are newsworthy.

I couldn't agree with their reasoning more, and I sincerely hope that more publications follow suit. I also predict that this won't hurt the Guardian's metrics overall, at least in the medium term.

I also appreciate their note at the bottom of the article:

"Thankfully, we can do this because our business model does not rely on viral content tailored to the whims of the social media giants’ algorithms – instead we’re funded directly by our readers."

Yet another reason why patronage models are far better than advertising.

#Media

[Link]

[Damon Kiesow in Working Systems]

Damon Kiesow, who is the Knight Chair in Digital Editing and Producing at the Missouri School of Journalism, writes:

"We ourselves have torn down the wall between editorial and business interests if as journalists, our calculation here is not values-based. To wit: “But I have a large following and neither BlueSky or Threads does.” That is the rationalization of a marketer, not a journalist who believes in the SPJ Code of Ethics dictate to “minimize harm.”"

The questions Damon raises in this post are the right ones. It's long past time for journalists to interrogate their uses of social media and whether they're doing harm, and I deeply appreciate the callout to the SPJ Code of Ethics as a core principle here.

Alternatives are available that don't have these toxic traits and are more engaged, less dangerous for your community, and a part of the future of the web rather than a relic of the past. Use them.

#Media

[Link]

[Taylor Lorenz at User Mag]

Gen Z men have lurched to the right, which was one factor behind this month's election result. This is, in part, because they've been inundated with media that speaks to a right-leaning point of view - and there's almost no counterpart on the Left.

"Leftist channels do not receive widespread financial backing from billionaires or large institutional donors, primarily because leftist content creators support policies that are completely at odds with what billionaires want."

There is no progressive answer to Rogan. There could be - there's no shortage of progressive hosts who could fill this role - but as Taylor argues here, and as I've also previously argued, the funding isn't there for it.

As Taylor points out:

"The conservative media landscape in the United States is exceptionally well-funded, meticulously constructed, and highly coordinated. Wealthy donors, PACs, and corporations with a vested interest in preserving or expanding conservative policies strategically invest in right-wing media channels and up and coming content creators."

For progressive causes to win, there must be investment in progressive influencers. Not in a cringe Air America way, but authentic voices who are already out there and need a lift to reach more audiences. So the question becomes: where are those progressive influencers? And who can bankroll them in such a way that they retain their independence and authenticity - but amplified?

#Media

[Link]

[Mathew Ingram at The Torment Nexus]

Mathew Ingram on blaming social media for the stratification of society:

"In the end, that is too simple an explanation, just as blaming the New York Times' coverage of the race is too simple, or accusing more than half of the American electorate of being too stupid to see Trump for what he really is. They saw it, and they voted for him anyway. That's the reality."

This piece does a good job of debunking the lingering idea that "fake news" swings elections, or that social media bubbles are responsible for multiple realities and "alternative facts". In fact, this is a process that has been ongoing since the 1990s, and social media is a mirror of it rather than the cause.

If you're looking for answers, you need to look elsewhere.

#Media

[Link]

[Dick Tofel]

Dick Tofel on where the press should go next:

"We held a free and fair election, and the candidate who hates the press, who makes sport of threatening it physically and with censorship and muzzling, won. The campaign was fought across seven states and he won them all. He got more votes than his opponent."

There's a lot here about how the press could and should respond to the current situation, which I largely agree with. But I particularly agree with this analysis:

"For more than forty years, we have become an ever-more winner-take-all society, one in which the gap between the winners and losers has widened, particularly with respect to income, wealth, education and the advantages that accrue to all three. The Republican Party promoted this; the Democratic Party largely tolerated it. Now tens of millions of those who feel the sting of lower incomes, lesser wealth, inferior education have rebelled.

They have, in one of history’s great ironies, put their faith in, and channeled their rage through one of the winners, one who did almost nothing for them the first time he held power, but who gives voice to their grievances, both legitimate and not, and adroitly vilifies those they most resent."

I think there's a lot to this - and I think the Democrats have unfortunately done a poor job of speaking up for working class people who are really struggling. That's not to say that its messages about inclusion are bad - they're very good - but it's not either / or. There needs to be a strong message about how poor people are going to be better-off, that is clear-eyed about rising prices and unemployment for that demographic in particular. And we need to make the world better for the systemically oppressed. We are all in this together.

#Media

[Link]

[Heather Bryant]

A characteristically sharp piece on the Washington Post's spiked Presidential endorsement and ensuing fallout from Heather Bryant:

"Good journalism is not unique to the Washington Post. Or the L.A. Times. Or the New York Times. Or any other specific organization. Their historical reach and influence is unique, but not necessarily the quality of their work. [...] If you venerate an institution to the point where you refrain from holding it accountable, what are you teaching it but that it can do what it wants without consequence?"

I strongly agree with this message. News is an industry in trouble, but we must not confuse ourselves: the thing we need to protect is speaking truth to power and an informed voting population - the act of journalism itself - and not necessarily the incumbent institutions themselves. The latter must be held accountable, and canceling subscriptions is one of the few levers we have.

I canceled my subscription. If you're still a subscriber, you should make your own mind up - but bear in mind that it is a way to take action and be noticed in the face of a pretty appalling publisher decision.

#Media

[Link]

[Manuel Roig-Franzia and Laura Wagner at The Washington Post]

"An endorsement of Harris had been drafted by Post editorial page staffers but had yet to be published, according to two people who were briefed on the sequence of events and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The decision to no longer publish presidential endorsements was made by The Post’s owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, according to four people who were briefed on the decision."

What an act of absolute cowardice.

Later that same day, Donald Trump met with executives from Bezos-owned Blue Origin. Perhaps it's a coincidence, but the twin events illustrate the danger of this kind of ownership of a paper that is supposed to publish independent journalism.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's joint statement is pertinent:

“We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, but this decision 12 days out from the 2024 presidential election ignores the Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy. Under Jeff Bezos’s ownership, the Washington Post’s news operation has used its abundant resources to rigorously investigate the danger and damage a second Trump presidency could cause to the future of American democracy and that makes this decision even more surprising and disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process.”

#Media

[Link]

[Anne Helen Petersen]

"The best indication of the health of an industry like journalism isn’t who excels there, because the answer is obvious: work robots who come from some sort of family money. To understand just how broken media is, look at who leaves the field — or who dares not pursue it. Because this much I know is true: it’s not because they’re soft."

Anne Helen Petersen makes some welcome, sharp observations about newsroom attitudes to work. In many ways, journalism is behind even tech in terms of reckoning with its own culture and having empathy for the people who push for better working conditions. The idea that they're too soft is absurd: they simply can't make ends meet and deserve to be supported at work, as everyone does.

Fundamentally, this needs to seep in - not just in practice, but in spirit:

"These media executives understand unions as a coddling mechanism, when what they’re really trying to do is make the field sustainable. For the current generation of journalists, sure, but also for the journalists to come."

The advantages to producing a sustainable working environment are obvious and enormous. Inclusive, diverse environments with multiple perspectives that allow newsrooms to resonate with broader audiences aren't some kind of nice-to-have: doing this intentionally is good for business.

The system is broken. Younger entrants are showing how to fix it. Listen to them, for crying out loud. The goal is surely to speak truth to power and ensure everyone has the ability to make informed democratic decisions, not to preserve an industry as-is. Change isn't just inevitable: it's survival.

#Media

[Link]

[Kirsten Eddy at Pew Research Center]

The lede is a little buried here behind some pretty shocking top-line stats:

"Today, 37% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they have a lot of or some trust in the information that comes from social media sites. This is nearly on par with the 40% of Republicans who express this level of trust in national news organizations."

"[...] Adults under 30 are now nearly as likely to have a lot of or some trust in the information that comes from social media sites (52%) as from national news organizations (56%)."

Okay, but what's fascinating is that both groups trust local news outlets a great deal more. These have been systemically underfunded and are often run on a shoestring, but there's something about the local voice that really matters.

My suspicion - which is really just a hunch, so take it with a pinch of salt - is that it's because local news outlets don't tend to deal as much with abstract partisan politics. They're not going to comment on what Trump said now, or perceived shortcomings in the Harris campaign.

But, of course, local politics really matters. So it's interesting to think about what might happen if there's more investment in the space - something that initiatives like Tiny News Collective, the American Journalism Project and The Lenfest Institute are already thinking hard about. We need diverse, mission-driven outlets like Open Vallejo and Mission Local to spring up across the country.

My question as a technologist is how platforms, and more pointedly, open protocols can support these newsrooms. How can technology help great local journalists find the reach and make the impact they need, on their terms? And how can journalists, technologists, and product thinkers work together to shine a light on local politics and improve life in communities across the country?

#Media

[Link]