The news landscape has faced relentless negativity recently, with two particularly disheartening developments emerging this week. A Gallup poll revealed a significant drop in American trust toward mainstream news outlets, reaching an unprecedented low. Additionally, The New York Times published an article highlighting that tech companies from Silicon Valley, once a significant source of traffic for journalism, are now distancing themselves from news platforms. Factors like link taxes, the complexities of content moderation, advertising restrictions, and audience fatigue have rendered “news” a troublesome endeavor for today’s digital content providers. Even Threads, Meta's rival to Twitter, has opted to lessen the emphasis on news content within its platform.

For those of us who have been in journalism for a while, this narrative feels like a classic case of “dog bites man.” The focus of The Times article is the departure of Campbell Brown, Meta’s news liaison. However, those familiar with Brown's tenure would recognize the situation as somewhat humorous. Hired in 2017 to smooth Facebook's tumultuous relations with the media, she candidly advised me in early 2019 against investing in a partnership with Facebook while we were launching The Recount.

Ultimately, we chose to collaborate with Twitter, which at that time was still a key player in the online news arena. Although our partnership showed initial promise, the grim nature of current events—Trump's policies, pandemics, racially charged violence—made it challenging to attract advertising revenue. Then came Elon Musk. We eventually merged The Recount with another media startup that wasn’t as focused on U.S. politics, and for the past year, I’ve enjoyed stepping away from the news business (and Twitter, too).

Yet, I can't help but ponder the root causes of our collective disillusionment with “the news.” What aspects of the craft that aims to deliver truth have led to such a challenging business model?

As I prepare to teach a course on news business models at Northeastern University starting next year, I realize I need to have some thoughtful responses to that question. This won’t be my first attempt to equip aspiring journalists with insights into the business side of journalism; I taught a similar course two decades ago at UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism. Back then, social media was nonexistent, and print media, while declining, hadn’t yet reached a point of perceived extinction.

Since that time, over 25,000 journalism jobs have vanished from local newsrooms. As this decline intensified, I launched or invested in more than a dozen journalism-related ventures, none of which made a significant impact. It remains exceedingly difficult to secure reliable backing for innovative approaches to quality journalism. While examples of success abound in the broader “news” category, instances of triumph in “hard news”—the routine of beat reporting—are scarce.

So what can be done? As expected, there are no straightforward solutions. However, here are some strategies newsrooms are exploring, all complicated by a fundamental truth: when people express a desire for the truth, they often seek confirmation of their own beliefs, leaving little room for objective journalism.

• Operate as a for-profit entity. Traditionally, this has been the funding model for most newsrooms. In an era when news outlets monopolized audience attention, they could effectively generate both advertising and subscription revenue. However, the Internet has fractured this ecosystem. Consumers have grown reluctant to pay for information that is freely available online, and advertising dollars have shifted to platforms like Instagram and Google. While some digital publications have pivoted to events, commerce, and soft news to appease advertisers, those grounded in news struggle to diversify. National brands like The Times, The Journal, and The Washington Post have managed to thrive through the digital transition, while local outlets continue to churn out pharma ads. For everyone else, it’s a tough road ahead.
• Focus on niche markets as a for-profit entity. A proven approach in the post-digital news world is to target niche audiences willing to pay for specialized reporting, along with advertisers seeking to reach these groups. This strategy is exemplified by The Information (technology) and Skift (travel). It’s the model we used with Wired, The Industry Standard, and even The Recount. However, industry-focused sites often face challenges related to bias in coverage and the inherent nature of “hard news,” which typically covers broader, public-interest topics.
• Leverage Substack and similar platforms. Numerous examples showcase successful independent journalism at the micro-niche level, such as Judd Legum’s Popular Information and Heather Cox Richardson’s Letters from an American. However, these newsletters often find themselves accused of bias, as the authors cater to specific audiences. Additionally, scaling one-person newsrooms often leads back to the same challenges faced by larger organizations.
• Consider government funding. Surprisingly, many liberal democracies have established funding mechanisms to support journalism, primarily for television and radio. The UK’s Television License is a prime example, and similar systems exist in various European nations, Japan, South Korea, and South Africa. Steven Waldman, CEO of the local journalism nonprofit Report for America, recently posited that investing in local journalism would yield a substantial return by uncovering corruption and fraud in communities. However, achieving consensus on government-funded journalism in the U.S. seems unlikely, especially given the current polarization around political candidates and the general skepticism many journalists have towards government dependence.
• Seek support from wealthy individuals. In the absence of governmental action, funding for innovative journalism has often fallen to philanthropists, driven by a mix of altruism, political motives, tax benefits, and personal interests. This is how organizations like Report for America support local journalists, and how major outlets like The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and Time are owned by wealthy individuals with generally philanthropic intentions. Nonetheless, relying on benevolent billionaires is neither scalable nor stable, risking conflicts of interest. While philanthropy fuels many smaller journalistic projects, not every city is fortunate enough to have a benefactor like Michael Moritz willing to support dedicated journalists.
• Encourage corporate support. If journalism is critical to democracy and stable economies, one might wonder why corporations don’t invest in journalism as part of their corporate social responsibility initiatives. However, this notion is unlikely to materialize. Corporations, as political entities, fear alienating any faction in our divided society. With a significant portion of the electorate viewing “the news” as an adversary, major corporations are unlikely to fund journalism efforts, despite superficial gestures of support.

So where does that leave us? Unfortunately, we face a scarcity of viable options. Of all the approaches, I lean toward government funding, despite its complexities. Nonetheless, I remain optimistic, though I can’t fully explain why (perhaps it’s a mix of insanity, aging, and bourbon). Maybe it’s influenced by a quote from The Atlantic’s executive editor featured in The Times article about tech platforms abandoning journalism: “Direct connections to your readership are obviously important. We as humans and readers should not rely solely on three dominant, attention-sucking mega-platforms to keep us informed.” Perhaps we are beginning to witness a shift, and audiences will grow weary of the pitfalls associated with being misinformed.

One can hope, right?

—

You can follow my future endeavors by subscribing to my site newsletter. Thank you for reading.