We are in the middle of one of the worst times of my lifetime for the news industry. The local newspaper industry has been collapsing for two decades, ever since the Internet began sucking revenue from print advertising. National newspaper journalism and television did a little better, but they made a comeback during Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and presidency, captivating the nation and alarming Americans on the left. But the Trump bump disappeared after he left office. Web traffic and TV audience data show that Americans are less interested in news about Trump’s latest presidential run than they were in the 2016 and 2020 elections.
And it’s now clear that billionaires are no panacea for the news industry. The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, and other super-wealthy people who have bought news organizations have not been as successful in making money from journalism as they have been from other businesses, and have cut staff to minimize losses.
Add it all up and you’re seeing layoffs across the journalism industry, even as the U.S. economy is strong and President Trump is back in the news (Business Insider, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine) was last week).
The journalism industry itself and the general public need to fully accept the changed landscape. The days when many news organizations were successful businesses are over and may never return. Foundations, wealthy individuals, average Americans, and even local and state governments are being asked to subsidize news organizations through subscriptions and donations in far greater numbers than ever before. In the past, public radio stations holding fundraisers were unusual in an industry primarily funded by advertising. But in the future, many news organizations may become essentially charities, relying on wealthy people and you to help them provide critical services that the market doesn’t support.
So what kind of journalism should Americans be willing to fund? Especially 3 types. Government and policy news, especially news at the local and state level. Watchdog journalism that closely investigates powerful individuals, companies, and political leaders. It also includes coverage of culture, from important books and movies to faith and spirituality.
Why would you do that? They capture America’s major crisis: anti-democratic tendencies within the Republican Party. The growing and often unchecked power of corporations and the wealthy. The homelessness epidemic, drug addiction, declining life expectancy, and other issues affecting America’s disadvantaged populations. Increasing impacts of climate change. And as Americans navigate a world filled with social media but without religious congregations and other community-based groups, connection and community are diminishing.
Aren’t news organizations already facing such a crisis? Not completely. Americans who live in rural and suburban areas often have little information about their local school boards, city councils, and other decision-makers because of exhaustive coverage in local newspapers. Local and national news organizations reduce cultural coverage because they mistakenly believe that it is unnecessary.
Even politics is not covered in much detail, despite national news outlets devoting significant resources to the subject. For example, Republican officials have essentially adopted a comprehensive policy agenda (huge personal income tax cuts and school aid are two highlights) in the 24 states they control. But with the exception of abortion, there is little news about these policies, as most national news outlets define “politics” as the White House, Capitol Hill, Congress and presidential campaigns. It is not necessarily important that a single state legislature adopts the provision, but it is important that 24 of them do so.
The New York Times published an article last year claiming that Republicans “lack a unified legislative agenda, clear leadership, and a common vision for the country” and that the paper doesn’t follow state governments as closely. It seems as if he has expressed that. A news organization’s vision for democracy coverage must go beyond the scrutiny of President Trump and a few other prominent radical Republicans.
The journalism I want doesn’t have to be boring. Supporter-funded media outlets focused on government and investigations have sprung up across the country. This is welcome news. I have been publicly advocating for the establishment of this type of news organization for the past ten years. However, I am having trouble reading their work. They are often long, overly detailed, and dryly written. That’s wrong. Great climate reporting can be done in tweets or infographics. Some of the best policy journalism is in sharply written opinion columns.
This journalism doesn’t have to be overly negative either. Surveillance journalism should be adversarial. But I would love to read about communities that are working to solve homelessness and education issues and make their area a model for other parts of the country. Much of Americans’ “news fatigue” comes from constantly being presented with problems and rarely with solutions.
This journalism should move completely away from the false equivalence and minimization of today’s Republican radicalism that still plagues the field. News outlets should not be as blatantly pro-Democratic as MSNBC. However, liberals tend to be more concerned about Trumpism, climate change, and inequality (crises I have identified) than conservatives, and are therefore more likely to support journalism that focuses on these issues. So to a news outlet that essentially has a “Republicans are too radical, Democrats are too woke” mentality and acts as if left-wing college students and right-wing governors are an equally big problem in America. They should not be asked to provide funding.
In the old world of journalism, the goal was to reach the largest audience possible to appeal to advertisers. But today, news organizations that report honestly about the Republican Party are both good journalism and good business serving paying customers.
So when news organizations are begging for money, they need to provide understandable and sometimes positive content about power, politics, and culture. What about other things?
College and professional sports, restaurant openings, TV show appearances, the ups and downs of various stocks…all were in the daily newspapers of the past. If the only news source for a particular community is a news outlet funded by supporters, education reporters should be prioritized over pro football writers. But if sports and entertainment coverage helps attract consumers to outlets and subsidizes more serious journalism, I’m all for it. The New York Times is a rare news organization that is thriving financially, in part because people are paying for its recipes and games like his Wordle.
Can journalism survive with this idea of public interest? I’m not sure. But with the decline of the clear commercial model, this feels like the only path left. And while this is one general direction, there are many permutations of this approach. In cities like Baltimore, Boston, and Washington, D.C., the ultra-wealthy help fund local newspapers. Louisville Public Media has a radio program, a website, and an investigative division, all supported by an extensive funding base. Many foundations support Capital B. Capital B focuses specifically on Black Americans living in the Midwest and South.
I don’t expect there to be as many full-time journalists in America any time soon as there were in 1998. I’m not optimistic about the future of my profession. But I’m not fatalistic about it either. Decades ago, journalists helped inspire Americans to end Jim Crow in the South. More recently, they have brought much-needed attention to America’s vast incomes and racial inequality, providing an important check on President Trump’s anti-democratic behavior.
Unfortunately, Trump’s rise has not created a profitable journalism industry. But if journalists bring their unique skills and strengths to America’s crisis, and Americans welcome their actions, it can yield something purposeful.