Posts Tagged ‘journalism’
“Give me a place to stand, and I will move the earth”*…
It’s all about leverage… perhaps nowhere more painfully than in the philanthropic sector: so many problems; so little bandwidth!
Dick Tofel (a media advisor who was founding general manager and first employee of ProPublica, and its president from 2013 until 2021) weighs in with a “modest proposal.” It’s largely aimed at his field (public media, writ large), an altogether worthy focus; but the general principal is surely much broadly applicable…
I read a fascinating history over the recent holidays and it made me wonder about whether we ought to be fundamentally rethinking institutional philanthropy in this challenging moment. Because that philanthropy provides critical support to so much of nonprofit journalism, I think the question is worth exploring here this week.
The book is The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America [here] by John Fabian Witt [here], a professor at Yale Law School. It charts the history of the American Fund for Public Service, a progressive foundation (to use our contemporary lingo) that operated in the 1920s and ‘30s, and produced some remarkable results with fairly limited resources (roughly $36 million over its entire run in current dollars).
The American Fund was rocked by conflicts between what we would now call progressives and literal Communists, and it made a few foolish grants, including some funding for Stalin-era Soviet agriculture, but it also accomplished an astonishing number of big things. It provided critical support for the NAACP, from its early anti-lynching campaign to launching the litigation program that culminated in Brown v. Board of Education, and including the earlier first moves toward salary equalization for public school teachers and desegregation of public graduate schools in the South; funded lifelines for Sidney Hillman’s industrial unionization drive that eventually produced the CIO, and for A. Philip Randolph’s pathbreaking Black union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; and supported the defenses of Sacco and Vanzetti, the Scopes “monkey trial” and the Scottsboro Boys.
In all, as Witt concludes, “People and movements touched by the American Fund did more for twentieth-century American liberalism than all the money of the era’s much larger and more famous foundations.”
Here’s what got me to thinking: Over well more than a decade, the American Fund spent only $67,000 (about $1.25 million today), or 3.5% of its total spending, on its own operations—the rest went to gifts and grants. This was possible because the Fund hired essentially no staff, with its work being done by its many impressive directors, including Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU, James Weldon Johnson, leader of the NAACP, Norman Thomas, the perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate (he got almost 900,000 votes in 1932), Freda Kirchwey of The Nation and attorney Morris Ernst. Among the giants they consulted were W.E.B. du Bois, Felix Frankfurter and Reinhold Niebuhr.
And here’s what it made me wonder: Especially in this moment of overwhelming needs across the social sector, as the federal government withdraws from so many crucial activities it had undertaken and supported for a half century, should institutional foundations recast themselves in the model of the American Fund, dispensing with their large staffs and instead restocking their boards with leaders who could directly disperse their largess?
Before you object that that’s simply impractical, you need to reckon with the fact that this is actually the operating model of most of what we call “major donors,” wealthy individuals, occasionally with family foundations, some of them making very large grants. Mackenzie Scott is the overwhelmingly largest funder of this sort, but in our own field such funders have included those who sparked Voice of San Diego, ProPublica, the Texas Tribune, the Marshall Project, CalMatters, Mississippi Today, the Flatwater Free Press, Baltimore Banner, Tulsa Flyer and others. The track record for initiatives spurred by institutional foundation funding is, well, a bit less stellar.
The costs of the current model are also much larger than you may imagine. The Ford Foundation, in 2024 alone, spent more than $212 million on its own operations, while making $840 million in grants and gifts (about 20% of the total). Nor is Ford an outlier in this respect: the MacArthur Foundation spent almost $68 million on itself, while paying out $356 million (16%) and the Knight Foundation incurred $32 million in expenses to grant and gift $148 million (18%).
I’m not complaining about these “overhead” rates as such—they are not at all unreasonable by contemporary foundation standards. (The 2024 rate for the Rockefeller Foundation, where I once worked, was 38%!) But for just these three major news funders, the aggregate cost comes to more than $300 million in one year alone. (Of course, news is just one of many things these giants fund.) That total spent on running three foundations is more than half of the rescinded federal support of public broadcasting. The difference between the American Fund’s 3.5% and the 18% median rate for Ford, MacArthur and Knight would be $250 million available for additional grants each year from these three funders alone.
I headlined this column a “modest proposal” because I do not expect it to be adopted, nor perhaps to be taken entirely literally. But I do hope it is directionally provocative. As I have said more than once with respect to public broadcasting, revolutionary changes require an extraordinary response. Essentially every objective of the major institutional foundations is under unprecedented pressure. In that setting, doing business in the usual way may no longer make sense. Looking to the American Fund suggests another path might be possible…
Repurposing overhead: “A Modest Proposal for Big Philanthropy in a Tale from the Past,” from @dicktofel.bsky.social.
For a broad history of philanthropy from the 16th century, see here.
[Image above from “Philanthropy on the Defensive,” also worth a read for a conservative take that inches toward some of the same conclusions…]
* Archimedes (brandishing his lever)
###
Lest we even imagine that philanthropy can do it all, we might recall that it was on this date in 1940 that the first Social Security check– for $22.54– was issued to Ida May Fuller.
The Social Security Program had been created in 1935, with qualification for eligibility (covered earnings) beginning in 1937. So Ms. Fuller, a teacher-turned legal-secretary, had been accumulating credit for three years. She lived to 100 years old and collected a total of $22,888.
“The new media are not ways of relating to us the ‘real’ world; they are the real world and they reshape what remains of the old world at will.”*…
There is a vortex of forces shaping the future of journalism. Censorship, both direct and indirect, is on the rise in the U.S. and around the world. Concentration of media ownership is homogenizing coverage and creating “news deserts.”
At the same time, new technology and new applications of that technology are reshaping the Fourth estate. The Reuters Institute at Oxford surveyed 280 digital leaders from 51 countries and territories to learn what they are seeing– and planning. From the Executive Summary…
We are still at the early stages of another big shift in technology (Generative AI) which threatens to upend the news industry by offering more efficient ways of accessing and distilling information at scale. At the same time, creators and influencers (humans) are driving a shift towards personality-led news, at the expense of media institutions that can often feel less relevant, less interesting, and less authentic. In 2026 the news media are likely to be further squeezed by these two powerful forces.
Understanding the impact of these trends, and working out how to combat them, will be high up the ‘to do list’ of media executives this year, despite the unevenly distributed pace of change across countries and demographics.
Existential challenges abound. Declining engagement for traditional media combined with low trust is leading many politicians, businessmen, and celebrities to conclude that they can bypass the media entirely, giving interviews instead to sympathetic podcasters or YouTubers. This Trump 2.0 playbook – now widely copied around the world – often comes bundled with a barrage of intimidating legal threats against publishers and continuing attempts to undermine trust by branding independent media and individual journalists as ‘fake news’. These narratives are finding fertile ground with audiences – especially younger ones – that prefer the convenience of accessing news from platforms, and have weaker connections with traditional news brands. Meanwhile search engines are turning into AI-driven answer engines, where content is surfaced in chat windows, raising fears that referral traffic for publishers could dry up, undermining existing and future business models.
Despite these difficulties many traditional news organisations remain optimistic about their own business – if not about journalism itself. Publishers will be focused this year on re-engineering their businesses for the age of AI, with more distinctive content and a more human face. They will also be looking beyond the article, investing more in multiple formats especially video and adjusting their content to make it more ‘liquid’ and therefore easier to reformat and personalise. At the same time, they’ll be continuing to work out how best to use Generative AI themselves across newsgathering, packaging, and distribution. It’s a delicate balancing act but one that – if they can pull it off – holds out the promise of greater efficiency and more relevant and engaging journalism.
These are the main findings from our industry survey:
- Only slightly more than a third (38%) of our sample of editors, CEOs, and digital executives say they are confident about the prospects for journalism in the year ahead – that’s 22pp lower than four years ago. Stated concerns relate to politically motivated attacks on journalism, loss of USAID money that previously supported independent media in many parts of the world, and significant declines in traffic to many online news sites.
- By contrast, around half (53%) say they are confident about their own business prospects, similar to last year’s figure. Upmarket subscription-based publishers with strong direct traffic can see a path to long-term profitability, even as those that remain dependent on advertising and print worry about sharp declines in revenue and the potential impact of AI powered search on the bottom line.
- Publishers expect traffic from search engines to decline by more than 40% over the next three years – not quite ‘Google Zero’ but a substantial impact none the less. Data sourced for this report from analytics provider Chartbeat shows that aggregate traffic to hundreds of news sites from Google search has already started to dip, with publishers that rely on lifestyle content saying they have been particularly affected by the roll out of Google’s AI overviews. This comes after substantial falls in referral traffic to news sites from Facebook (-43%) and X, formerly Twitter (-46%) over the last three years.
- In response, publishers say it will be important to focus on more original investigations and on the ground reporting (+91 percentage point difference between ‘more’ and ‘less’), contextual analysis and explanation (+82) and human stories (+72). By contrast, they plan to scale back service journalism (-42), evergreen content (-32), and general news (-38), which many expect to become commoditised by AI chatbots. At the same time, they think it will be important to invest in more video (+79) – including ‘watch tabs’ – more audio formats (+71) such as podcasts but a bit less in text output.
- In terms of off-platform strategies, YouTube will be the main focus for publishers this year with a net score of +74, up substantially on last year. Other video-led platforms such as TikTok (+56) and Instagram (+41) are also key priorities – along with working out how to navigate distribution through AI platforms (+61) such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini and Perplexity. Google Discover remains a critical (+19), if slightly volatile, source of referral traffic, while some publishers are looking to find new audiences via newsletter platforms such as Substack (+8). By contrast, publishers will be deprioritising effort spent on old-style Google SEO (-25) – as well as traditional social networks Facebook (-23) and X (-52)
- Last year we predicted the emergence of ‘agentic AI’, but this year we can expect to start to see real-world impact of these more advanced technologies. Some sources suggest that there will soon be more bots than people reading publisher websites, as tools like Huxe and OpenAI’s Pulse offer personalised news briefings at scale. Three-quarters of our respondents (75%) expect ‘agentic tools’ to have a ‘large’ or ‘very large’ impact on the news industry in the near future.
- Alongside the traffic disruption from AI, news executives also see opportunities to build new revenue from licensing content (or a share of advertising revenue) within chatbots. Around a fifth (20%) of publisher respondents – mainly from upmarket news companies – expect future revenues to be substantial, with half (49%) saying that they expect a minor contribution. A further fifth (20%), mostly made up of local publishers, public broadcasters, or those from smaller countries, say they do not expect any income from AI deals.
- More widely, subscription and membership remain the biggest revenue focus (76%) for publishers, ahead of both display (68%) and native advertising (64%). Online and physical events (54%) are also becoming more important as part of a diversified revenue strategy. Reliance on philanthropic and foundation support (18%) has declined this year, after cuts of media support budgets in the United States and elsewhere.
- Meanwhile news organisations’ use of AI technologies continues to increase across all categories, with back-end automation considered ‘important’ this year by the vast majority (97%) of publisher respondents, many of whom integrated pilot systems into content management systems in the last year. Newsgathering cases (82%) are now the second most important, with faster coding and product development (81%) also gaining traction.
- Over four in ten (44%) survey respondents say that their newsroom AI initiatives are showing ‘promising’ results, but a similar proportion (42%) describe them as ‘limited’. Two-thirds of respondents (67%) say they have not saved any jobs so far as a result of AI efficiencies. Around one in seven (16%) say they have slightly reduced staff numbers but a further one in ten (9%) have added new roles/cost.
- The rise of news creators and influencers is a concern for publishers in two ways. More than two-thirds (70%) of our respondents are concerned that they are taking time and attention away from publisher content. Four in ten (39%) worry that they are at risk of losing top editorial talent to the creator ecosystem, which offers more control and potentially higher financial rewards.
- Responding to the increased competition and a shift of trust towards personalities, three-quarters (76%) of publisher respondents say they will be trying to get their staff to behave more like creators this year. Half (50%) said they would be partnering with creators to help distribute content, around a third (31%) said they would be hiring creators, for example to run their social media accounts. A further 28% are looking to set up creator studios and facilitate joint ventures.
More widely, could 2026 be the year when AI company stock valuations come down to earth with a bump, amid concerns about whether their trillion-dollar bets will pay back their investors? Meanwhile the amount of low-quality AI automated content, including so-called ‘pink slime’ sites, looks set to explode, with platforms struggling to distinguish this from legitimate news.
We can expect more public concern about the role of big tech in our lives. This may include individual acts of ‘Appstinence’ and other forms of digital detox and a desire for more IRL (In Real Life) connection. Governments will also come under pressure to do more to protect young and other vulnerable groups online, even in the United States.
The creator economy will continue to surge, fuelled by investments from video platforms and streamers. At the top end creators will look more like Hollywood moguls with big budgets and their own studio complexes. Within news, we’ll also see the emergence of bigger, more robust, creator-led companies delivering significant revenues as well as value to audiences – offering ever greater competition for traditional journalism…
Read the report in full: “Journalism, media, and technology trends and predictions 2026,” from @reutersinstitute.bsky.social.
* Marshall McLuhan
###
As we ponder the prospects of the press, we might type a birthday note to John Baskerville, a pioneering English printer and typefounder, who was born on this date in 1706. Among Baskerville’s publications in the British Museum’s collection are Aesop’s Fables (1761), the Bible (1763), and the works of Horace (1770)– many printed on a stock he invented, “wove paper”, which was considerably smoother than “laid paper”, allowing for sharper printing results. And as for his fonts, Baskerville’s creations (including the famous “Baskerville,” a predecessor to the very similar Times New Roman) were so successful that his competitors resorted to claims that they damaged the eyes.
“As if the main object were to talk fast and not to talk sensibly”*…
As Josie Harvey reports, unlimited access to “doomscrolling” and the resultant emotional toll of constant negative news has led to record-high news avoidance…
News has never been more accessible – but for some, that’s exactly the problem. Flooded with information and relentless updates, more and more people around the world are tuning out.
The reasons vary: for some it’s the sheer volume of news, for others the emotional toll of negative headlines or a distrust of the media itself. In online forums devoted to mindfulness and mental health, people discuss how to step back, from setting limits to cutting the news out entirely…
… Globally, news avoidance is at a record high, according to an annual survey by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism published in June. This year, 40% of respondents, surveyed across nearly 50 countries, said they sometimes or often avoid the news, up from 29% in 2017 and the joint highest figure recorded.
The number was even higher in the US, at 42%, and in the UK, at 46%. Across markets, the top reason people gave for actively trying to avoid the news was that it negatively impacted their mood. Respondents also said they were worn out by the amount of news, that there is too much coverage of war and conflict, and that there’s nothing they can do with the information…
[Harvey reviews the dynamics at play– overabundance, challenges to mental health– concluding that limited, mindful access may be the key…]
… Benjamin Toff, director of the Minnesota Journalism Center at the University of Minnesota, studied the trend in his book Avoiding the News. He draws a key distinction between those who consistently avoid the news and those who simply limit their consumption – the latter, he says, is “perfectly healthy”.
“We live in a world in which you can access news 24/7 and be inundated with information at all times. But that doesn’t mean you should,” he said.
What worries him and his co-authors is when withdrawal turns into a cycle that deepens social divides, leaving some groups less likely to participate in political life.
“The more you disengage, disconnect from the news, the harder it becomes to try to make sense of what’s happening on any given story,” he explained.
The authors observed that consistent news avoidance tends to be more common among young people, women, and lower socioeconomic classes.
“If you believe as we do, that normatively, we want people to be able to have the same opportunities to engage politically, to vote, to be vocal about the political issues that matter, then we think it’s a problem that people are disengaging from news,” Toff said.
If “printer’s ink” is the lifeblood of democracy, we have an issue: “Why more and more people are tuning the news out: ‘Now I don’t have that anxiety’,” from @josieharvey.bsky.social in @theguardian.com.
* Henry David Thoreau, Walden
###
As we survive the surfeit, we might recall one of the larger steps toward the media environment in which we wallow was taken on this date in 1982: USA Today dropped its first issue.
The paper’s overall style– shorter articles, color photographs, an elevated use of graphics… and no longer, in-depth stories– was unique among newspapers at the time. Critics were largely unamused, referring to it as a “McPaper” or “television you can wrap fish in.” But as it succeeded, it changed the appearance and feel of newspapers around the world (in ways that anticipated the content and form/design of online jouranlism). Today, of course, while a print version survives, USA Today’s primary footprint is digital.
“A free press can, of course, be good or bad; but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad”*…
Your correspondent is writing this post a few days early, on Friday, the 18th, the day after Congress passed the bill terminating federal funding for public broadcasters, now at the White House for signature. It’s a dark day, especially for those rural areas that stand to lose their only local media outlets and journalistic sources. But while this is, your correspondent believes, tragic, it is only a corner of the larger media “battlefield,” most of which isn’t non-commerical…
Rusty Foster on the frankly terrifying moves afoot on that broader terrain…
Yesterday Washington Post Opinion columnist Philip Bump announced he was parachuting out of the Post’s extremely hardcore new right-wing reinvention by taking a buyout. Bump was the last remaining reason to visit the Post’s Opinion section, where he was a thoughtful and methodical practitioner of what we would have called “data journalism” before the spectacular flameout of Nate Silver’s career and the entire existence of David Leonhardt made the term too embarrassing to use. His last column was titled “When institutions crumble, strongmen step in,” and looked at a range of polls quantifying the decades-long decline of Americans’ trust in our institutions, including the news media. Bump’s tenure at the Post ended with the words:
Trump has for years stoked the idea that actually, having your own facts is fine. And even as his base chooses facts that he finds inconvenient in the moment, he’s still pushing toward the next phase: Everyone is entitled to the facts that Trump presents.
What institutions of power will be left to disagree?
In his monologue Tuesday, CBS Late Show host and my former boss’s former boss Stephen Colbert called his (soon to be) former boss’s current boss Paramount Corporation’s $16 million settlement with Donald Trump “a big fat bribe.”
Last night, Colbert announced that CBS will cancel The Late Show entirely at the end of his current contract, in May 2026. Colbert is currently the number one show in late night, and according to Jed Rosenzweig in LateNighter, “CBS’s Late Show was the only show among the nine tracked by LateNighter to draw more total viewers in Q2 than it had in the first quarter of 2025.” CBS released a statement saying that “This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.”
It’s definitely not part of the Trump bribe. Do not put in the newspaper that this is part of the Trump bribe. We’re just canceling the number one show in its time slot because of… reasons. Backdrops! Headwinds! Serious TV business.
This is, of course, obvious bullshit. Parker Molloy pulled together all the red yarn better than I would’ve had the patience to, so just go read why it’s bullshit over at The Present Age. But the main thing to know is that this whole CBS/Paramount/Trump settlement happened in order to secure Trump administration approval for a media holding company called Skydance to “merge with” (i.e. purchase) Paramount. Skydance is run by David Ellison, a large adult Butthead and the number one boy of Oracle founder, Donald Trump pal, and the world’s second-richest person Larry Ellison, who gave his son $8 billion to buy Paramount and turn it into more of the same cynical garbage that every other media company has become.
Earlier this week I met someone new and he asked me what I do for a living, and I said “I’m a writer,” and he said “Oh, what do you write?” This conversation happens often enough, and in virtually the same words, that I recognized right away where we were headed. I told him about Tabs and at that point although my new friend didn’t know it yet, we were already on a greased slide toward the moment where I would say: “…but these days I only write it once or twice a week, because the American news media has been systematically and intentionally destroyed by a handful of billionaires.”
“I realize that sounds a little crazy!” I always add with an apologetic laugh, because while outwardly he’s nodding and making a polite “oh really!” face, I can tell that on the inside he’s expecting me to bring up MKULTRA and possibly the JFK assassination next. But it’s not crazy, and you don’t need to believe in any conspiracy theories to see what’s happened. For example:
In 2008, Sam Zell bought the Tribune Corp, loaded it with debt like it was a distressed office building, and installed a drunk1 radio DJ to run it. The Tribune Corp promptly went bankrupt and as part of its ensuing slow-motion collapse sold the LA Times to biotech tycoon Patrick Soon-Shiong in 2018. By 2025, Soon-Shiong had purged the LA Times of any elements distressing to his distinctly South African sensibility, such as institutional commitment to newsroom diversity or informing the public about things he would prefer we didn’t know.
Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for a pittance in 2013, and for several years operated it as a reasonable and hands-off steward. But ten years later, Bezos would have a jacked new physique, a buxom new girlfriend, and soon he’d have a whole new set of buddies to impress. Claiming the Post was “on a pace to lose about $100 million in 2023,” (an amount of money it would take Jeff Bezos fully 28.5 hours of existing in the world to earn back) the newsroom job cuts began. By last summer, Bezos was bigfooting his own Opinion section’s Presidential endorsement and as of today, with craven former British tabloid bagman and drunk2 Will Lewis nominally in charge, almost everyone in the newsroom who could get out has gotten out and the paper continues hemorrhaging subscribers.
Peter Thiel paid just $10 million to kill Gawker outright, without even the pretense of capitalism justifying it, although he did eventually bid to purchase its remains as a bit. Elon Musk paid $44 billion to turn Twitter into a Matrix-style battery farm feeding a slurry of racist posts into his A.I. MechaHitler. Three days after Trump’s second inauguration, as one witty and perceptive media watcher reported at the time, “CNN head Mark Thompson offered Jim Acosta the option of moving his show from 10am to midnight and renaming it “The Jim Acosta Sucks Fake News Hour (Do Not Watch).” Facebook built a trillion dollar business in part by providing its users a centralized and individualized feed of interesting news stories, and then shut off the click tap as soon as Mark Zuckerburg felt he could afford to. Google built a $2 trillion business indexing news stories for search, as well as absorbing something like one third of online ad spend, with much of that also coming from news websites. But the moment that Google could use A.I. to ingest all that news content and serve it up muddled and lightly de-plagiarized right there on google dot com instead, news publishers immediately saw their search traffic crater too.
This list is by no means comprehensive, it’s just what I could immediately pull off the very top of the domepiece before I got tired of typing. Suffice it to say: many such cases.
When I told my new friend that the American news media has been systematically and intentionally destroyed by a handful of billionaires, he asked an extremely reasonable question, which was: “but why?” And what makes this feel like a conspiracy is that there is no single answer to “why?” Sometimes it’s arrogance, sometimes it’s ideology, sometimes it’s purely money. Often it’s a messy combination of all three.
But if you really want to step back a bit, the reason why is that we have a socioeconomic system that concentrates nation-state level wealth and power in the hands of a few individuals, with virtually no checks on what they can choose to do with it. So if Larry Ellison wants to turn CBS News into Bari Weiss’s Free Press TV, or Jeff Bezos wants to make The Washington Post into an ideological subsidiary of the Cato Institute… what institutions of power will be left to disagree?
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s simply what happened: “Billionaires Destroyed American News Media On Purpose,” from @rusty.todayintabs.com in his essential newsletter Today in Tabs.
Every last one of the links above is worth clicking– but perhaps especially Parker Malloy‘s piece.
(Image above: source)
* Albert Camus
###
As we pray for the press, we might send investigative birthday greetings to Paul Reuter; he was born on this date in 1819. A pioneer of telegraphy and news reporting, he was a reporter, media owner, and the founder of the Reuters news agency (that provides stories both to new outlets and directly to the public).
In 2008, Reuters was acquired by the Thompson Corporation of Canda, resulting in the the Thomson Reuters Corporation. Reuters reporting has been hudged fair and fact-based by three independent assessors.
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”*…
Of course, we don’t have to choose… but, if only by default, we are choosing. Local news is collapsing– and that’s a problem of just the sort that Thomas Jefferson (author of the quote above) feared. A recent report from Muck Rack and Rebuild Local News unpacks the scary details…
In 2000, many Americans lived in a community with journalists — people whose job it was to cover school board decisions, announce small business openings and closures, root out corruption at city hall, warn commuters about road work and trumpet the exploits of the high school teams. Today, most of those journalists are gone. The evaporation of local news coverage has hit small towns and big cities, suburbs and rural areas. Even as the country has grown, we’ve lost journalists.
Using data that’s never been tapped before, we now know just how severe this local journalist shortage has become. Less than a quarter-century ago, the United States had about 40 journalists per 100,000 residents on average. Now, the equivalent number is 8.2 Local Journalist Equivalents, about a 75% decline. (Local Journalist Equivalent is a new measure we’re introducing, akin to a Full Time Equivalent or FTE).
This means that big chunks of the country have severe shortages. Stunningly, more than 1,000 counties — one out of three — do not have the equivalent of even one full-time local journalist. And the “better off” parts of the country are in lousy shape, too. About two-thirds of the counties — home to 217 million people — are below even that already-catastrophic national average of 8.2 Local Journalist Equivalents.
To put that statistic in perspective, that means that if you live in a county of 10,000 people, there wouldn’t be even one full-time reporter to cover all of the schools, the town councils, the economic development projects, basketball games, environmental decisions, local businesses, and local events. There are 97,000 cities, towns, counties and other units of government. This report shows that there are the equivalent 27,000 local journalists. Most governments, most neighborhoods, and most residents are being covered poorly or not at all.
We also cannot assume the local news crisis is largely a rural phenomenon. The new data shows the extent to which the layoffs of journalists over time have left acute reporting shortages in many urban and suburban areas. If you’re in a big city like Los Angeles, which has a mere 3.6 Local Journalist Equivalents per 100,000 people, your neighborhood might be covered if there’s a serious crime but not much else. You may get little reliable information on local candidates in many of L.A. County’s cities, whether the schools in your neighborhood are improving, whether the hospital nearby has a bad mortality rate, or how inspiring people might be working to repair your playground.
The crisis is more severe and widespread than previously thought…
A map of how many local journalists cover each U.S. county reveals in stark detail the stunning collapse in local reporting: “Local Journalist Index 2025,” from @muckrack.com and @rebuildlocalnews.bsky.social. Eminently worth reading in full.
And note that many of the journalists who have survived are toiling under private equity ownership… which is effectively managing further decline.
Please consider supporting your local, non-profit public media organizations. They face threats from the Trump Administration (and several states, e.g.), and beyond those, face the challenges of continuing to adapt to a changing media environment. Despite that, they continue to do the work sessential to an effective democracy.
* Thomas Jefferson
###
As read all about it, we might recall that it was on this date in 2003 that Robert Novak violated journalistic ethics when he used his column in the Washingtom Post to “out” Valerie Plame as a CIA operative…
Plame was the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a career diplomat that had been the US Ambassador to a few minor countries and had served other diplomatic roles. Plame, who was already a CIA agent when she married Wilson, was used to good advantage by the CIA with her husband providing diplomatic cover.
All that changed when Wilson angered the administration of George W. Bush by publicly opposing the expected invasion of Iraq, explaining that on a fact finding mission to Africa he had discovered the alleged attempt by Iraq to acquire uranium was false.
Information was leaked to [conservative columnist] Robert Novak of the Washington Post about Plame’s job as a CIA agent, and he dutifully published the information. Plame’s position as a CIA agent was compromised, and having been outed made her useless to the CIA, resulting in her resignation and the end of her 18 year career in the CIA. This vindictive act of political dirty tricks undermined the security of the United States, but apparently the perpetrators cared more about their own politics than the good of the country. Plame was clearly sacrificed to get at Wilson for having the gall to (honestly) undermine the false case for invading Iraq.
Lewis “Scooter” Libby, a high ranking Bush administration official was not charged with illegally revealing Plame’s position with the CIA or with also revealing secret intelligence estimate information to the New York Times. Libby was indicted, however, for various counts of lying and obstructing justice. He was convicted of 4 of those counts and received a 30 month prison sentence. President George W. Bush commuted the sentence, removing the jail time but leaving the fine and probation and allowing the conviction to stand. It was later revealed that Richard Armitage, a deputy secretary of state, was the actual source of the leak to Novak.
After the trial, baffled jurors wondered to the press why Karl Rove and vice-president Dick Cheney had not been on trial. Many observers wondered the same thing. Wilson and Plame found federal courts to be unsympathetic to their lawsuits and the Obama administration was also unsupportive.
Plame had a book published about the incident titled Fair Game in 2007, and in 2010 a movie by the same name was released…
You must be logged in to post a comment.