IndyStar newsroom to grow with new positions, summer interns
Show Caption
The newsroom is expanding with two grant-funded journalist positions focused on environmental reporting and First Amendment issues.
Multiple summer internships are being funded through grants from various organizations.
Google the term "building the boat while sailing it" and you'll inevitably come upon a number of articles on change management and leading in times of crisis.
The phrase is probably my most frequently uttered idiom of the past two decades, as it reflects my ever-changing experience as a journalist over the past 22 years.
Case in point: In my first 15 months here at IndyStar, we've hired 17 full-time journalists, seen eight colleagues leave for other opportunities, and helped 11 interns — with another eight about to join us this summer — grow through their early careers, all while significantly adjusting our deadlines and workflows amid the ongoing consolidation of U.S. newspaper printing facilities.
That may seem like a lot of turnover, but IndyStar is fortunate to have more than 25 journalists who have served Central Indiana with trustworthy local news for more than five years each.
Veteran photojournalists Kelly Wilkinson and Michelle Pemberton, reporters Dana Hunsinger Benbow, Scott Horner and John Tuohy, multimedia manager Clark Wade, administrative manager Kim Mitchell, investigative editor Tim Evans, sports editor Nat Newell and local news editor Shari Rudavsky have each been at IndyStar for more than 20 years.
That level of deep local knowledge and connection to Central Indiana has allowed our newsroom to take a teaching hospital approach as our newer hires — myself included — learn while working alongside these mainstays of the Indianapolis journalism scene.
That's also how you build the boat while sailing it — not by the effort of one person, but through the combined efforts of a dedicated crew. Today, I'm pleased to share news of a few upcoming additions to IndyStar's newsroom.
IndyStar to welcome two grant-funded journalists in May
Our newsroom of more than 60 full-time journalists is about to expand thanks to the generous support of funders who share our interest in strengthening local journalism in Central Indiana and beyond.
The Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust has supported IndyStar's environmental journalism since 2022. Through the trust's support, reporting from Karl Schneider and former IndyStar environmental reporter Sarah Bowman has been published free to all readers.
Early this month, Sophia Hartley will join the team, filling the position Bowman vacated last year. Hartley graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a Master of Science in Science Writing. We're excited for Sophia to join the team and share stories of the many ways Hoosiers interact with and impact our natural resources and environment.
Later this month we'll also welcome a new First Amendment reporter, as part of an effort that will bring new reporting to five USA TODAY Network newsrooms. Our new reporter will share stories of the increasingly frequent tensions involving the five freedoms of the First Amendment.
For review, the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
These positions are made possible thanks to the generous support of the Freedom Forum's Local Press Initiative and Journalism Funding Partners, a nonprofit that works to increase the depth, diversity and sustainability of local journalism.
Grant funding to support summer internships at IndyStar
We also have the Central Indiana Community Foundation and Ida B. Wells Society for Investigative Reporting to thank for their support of IndyStar's robust summer internship program.
Grant funding from the two nonprofits will place seven student journalists and recent college graduates into summer internships starting in May and June. Our 2025 Pulliam Fellows funded through CICF are: Marissa Meador, Indiana University; Sam Habashy, Northwestern University; Matthew Cupelli, University of Florida; HG Biggs, Ohio University, Joshua Heron, Arizona State University, and Dow Jones News Fund intern Ethan Hylton, Goldsmiths University of London.
Juliann Ventura, Northwestern University, will be our Ida B. Wells Society investigative fellow. We'll also bring on a video intern through our Gannett Forward Summer Internship Program.
We're recruiting for a pop culture reporter, with more to come
Finally, we're in active recruitment for a pop culture to join our staff and report on Central Indiana's many cultural offerings, from concerts and festivals to Hoosiers on TV and much more.
We'll have more recruiting news in the future, as getting to "fully staffed" is always a work in progress. Thanks for letting me share a few updates here, and thanks for reading IndyStar.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
America will no longer tolerate Ireland's war on free speech
This week, Marco Rubio delivered a pointed warning to the world: the First Amendment is going global. The US secretary of state announced visa restrictions targeting 'foreign officials and persons' complicit in censoring Americans. 'Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere,' he said, 'the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over.' Diplomatically, it falls just shy of sanctions. No names were named: everyone implicated in speech policing, from ministers to overzealous constables, must now wonder whether their family holiday to Disney World has just been indefinitely postponed. Nowhere is the unease more acute than in Dublin. Ireland has long enjoyed its status as the EU's Anglophone entrepôt, a low-tax haven with excellent manners. But with most major social media platforms headquartered there, Dublin's regulators have inherited the unenviable task of enforcing Brussels' online speech codes. Caught between Brussels and Washington, and economically tethered to both, Ireland finds itself in a tight spot. It can no longer please everyone. And the timing could hardly be worse. In February, Brussels enacted the Digital Services Act (DSA), the most ambitious speech regulations in its history. It requires platforms to remove 'illegal content,' including those now-ubiquitous modern offences: 'disinformation' and 'hate speech'. Both are defined, helpfully, by national authorities with varying sensibilities. Brussels has made clear it prefers those definitions to be broad, and enforcement to be swift. The European Commission has now given Dublin two months to resuscitate a shelved hate speech bill or face the European Court of Justice. The law, paused after public backlash, rests on the elastic premise that hate is whatever the state says it is. That may comfort the authorities, but it leaves tech platforms navigating a legal hall of mirrors. The result? American companies face a binary choice: enforce vague foreign speech codes, or risk fines of up to 6 per cent of global turnover per breach. Most will opt for the safer route: when in doubt, delete. The knock-on effects have not gone unnoticed across the Atlantic, and Washington is not amused. As it steps back from its old role as global policeman, it finds its companies quietly conscripted as global censors. The regime, for good measure, threatens to tax not just American profits, but the principles underpinning them. And thanks to a quirk of geography and corporate clustering, Ireland has become the bailiff. That role has already earned Dublin what diplomats might politely call a 'frank exchange of views'. This week, Trump dispatched a team to the Irish capital, where they met with free speech advocates and, I'm told, delivered a few sharp words to the Irish government and media commissioner. Rubio's initiative reflects a growing mood in Washington that American free speech norms are under threat abroad, and that the full force of US diplomacy may be needed to defend them. Europe, for its part, is still pretending there's no clash at all. In Brussels, social media is seen less as a marketplace of ideas than as a digital latrine – the source of Trump, Brexit, and other electoral embarrassments. The sluices, in their view, must be shut. Washington sees it rather differently. In one illustrative moment last year, Thierry Breton, then the EU's Internal Market Commissioner, publicly warned Elon Musk about 'amplifying harmful content' shortly before Musk interviewed Donald Trump. The optics were not ideal: a European official rebuking an American billionaire for speaking to a former American president, in the lead-up to an American election. No such warnings, needless to say, were issued to Democrats. To Trump's allies, the asymmetry is obvious, and the State Department appears to agree. Though 'billed to protect children from harmful online content,' Europe's laws are, in its words, 'used to silence dissident voices through Orwellian content moderation.' Orwellian is a word best used sparingly, but the DSA may be one of the rare exceptions. There is still no settled definition of disinformation or hate speech. European governments, many of them nervous about rising populism, are now positioned to define and punish speech just as their electorates become more volatile. That conflict of interest alone ought to raise eyebrows. Hints of what's to come are already visible. One of the DSA's guiding lights is the Global Disinformation Index. Its co-founder, Clare Melford, once explained that disinformation isn't always about accuracy: 'Something can be factually accurate but still extremely harmful.' This represents a small but meaningful innovation in liberal jurisprudence: the idea that truth is no defence. In a talk at the LSE, Ms Melford offered a 'more useful' standard: 'It's not saying something is or is not disinformation, but it is saying that content on this site or this particular article is content that is anti-immigrant, content that is anti-women, content that is antisemitic.' Put simply, disinformation is not what is false, but what the right people find distasteful. Whether Rubio's visa threats lead to tangible consequences remains to be seen. But the symbolism is already doing its work. If Europe's speech enforcers must now consider the possibility of being flagged or blacklisted from the US, then the First Amendment's long reach may be starting to make itself felt. If not yet in Brussels, then certainly in Dublin. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Trump reignites feud with CBS over ‘deleted' Colbert interview - years after his claim was debunked
President Donald Trump posted a video claiming that CBS 'deleted' his 2015 interview with Stephen Colbert, resurfacing a debunked claim against one of his favorite recent rivals. Late on Friday, the president reposted a Facebook video on his Truth Social account containing heavily edited clips of his September 2015 interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. A message next to the video states: 'You are not supposed to see this video. CBS DELETED this entire episode from their official website. You will not find these segments on YouTube either.' However, a quick search on YouTube showed otherwise. Clips from the Trump-Colbert interview are still available to be watched on the official Late Show account. One video has 17 million views. The Independent has reached out to the White House and CBS for comment. Both the YouTube video and Trump's post include a portion of the interview in which Trump, then a candidate, touts his plans to build a wall, prompting the audience to cheer. 'Oh, listen to this, even with your crowd –' Trump begins. Colbert interjects: 'They love the wall. People love the wall.' Strangely, this isn't the first time that Trump has made this claim. The president appears to have reposted that same video in his first term in October 2018. Hours later, Colbert posted on X: 'I don't know why the president would take time on a National Day of Mourning to retweet something weird like this, but the original clips have always been online. 16 million views.' The comedian attached two links to YouTube clips from the episode in question. A CBS spokesperson at the time told the Associated Press that full episodes of The Late Show are only available to stream online 30 days after the initial airing. Trump's Friday Truth Social post marked the latest move in his feud with CBS. The president has repeatedly expressed his ire at CBS' 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. He has sued the network for $20 million, claiming it used 'deceitful editing' to advantage the then-vice president. CBS filed a motion to dismiss the case earlier this month, arguing: 'This lawsuit is an affront to the First Amendment and is without basis in law or fact.' In response, this week Trump's lawyers claimed he suffered 'mental anguish' as a result of the interview. His legal team also accused to the network of seeking 'to wield the First Amendment as a sword, arguing that they cannot be held responsible for illegal conduct, intended to mislead the masses and undertaken in the pursuit of profit, because such conduct was the result of 'editorial judgment.''
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
PBS Sues Trump Administration Over Executive Order to Cut Funding
Days after National Public Radio (NPR) sued the Trump administration over attempts to cut off its federal funding, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) has also filed a lawsuit, claiming that the proposed cuts violate the First Amendment. Trump signed an executive order earlier this month ordering the government 'to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS, alleging 'bias' in their reporting. Trump has also been looking to rescind federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). 'Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage,' the executive order read. On Tuesday, NPR and its member stations sued the Trump administration over the executive order, with PBS and a Minnesota public television station following Friday with a lawsuit filed at a federal court in Washington, D.C. The lawsuit objected to Trump's executive order that called PBS 'corrosive' as well as 'biased and partisan. 'PBS disputes those charged assertions in the strongest possible terms,' the lawsuit states. 'But regardless of any policy disagreements over the role of public television, our Constitution and laws forbid the President from serving as the arbiter of the content of PBS's programming, including by attempting to defund PBS.' The lawsuit continued, 'The [executive order] makes no attempt to hide the fact that it is cutting off the flow of funds to PBS because of the content of PBS programming and out of a desire to alter the content of speech. That is blatant viewpoint discrimination and an infringement of PBS and PBS Member Stations' private editorial discretion.' PBS said in a statement, 'After careful deliberation, PBS reached the conclusion that it was necessary to take legal action to safeguard public television's editorial independence, and to protect the autonomy of PBS member stations.' In response to the PBS lawsuit, a White House spokesperson accused the CPB of 'creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers' dime.' 'Therefore, the President is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement (via NPR). 'The President was elected with a mandate to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and he will continue to use his lawful authority to achieve that objective.' NPR and PBS receive about $500 million annually through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private, publicly funded nonprofit created by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Trump has been attacking the CPB since taking office, including by trying to fire some of its board members, prompting a lawsuit. The administration has also been looking to cut the CBP's federal funding. Trump will reportedly formally request Congress in early June to rescind the next two years of CPB funding, or $1.1 billion. More from Rolling Stone NPR Sues Trump for Trying to Strip Its Funding Trump Pumped and Dumped His Crypto Backers With Dud Dinner Party 'He Is Working to Erase Us': A Trans Activist on the Real Reason Trump's Budget Bans Trans Care Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
