Laura Washington: Journalism jobs may be in decline but local news still has a bright future
Everywhere I go, I hear, 'What is happening to the media? What will become of it?' I am asking too.
Journalists are filled with fear and loathing over the threats facing the Fourth Estate.
Money has corrupted national media icons and poisoned the waters for news consumers. Some, including the once-vaunted Washington Post, have bowed down to the illicit demands of President Donald Trump. '60 Minutes,' the once-hallowed CBS newsmagazine, appears to be kowtowing to Trump, who has sued the network for $10 billion, accusing it of 'unlawful and illegal behavior.'
Too many buy into Trump's claim that we are the arbiters of 'fake news.' Trump signed an executive order commanding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to 'cease federal funding for NPR and PBS.' On Truth Social, he labeled those public networks 'RADICAL LEFT 'MONSTERS' THAT SO BADLY HURT OUR COUNTRY!'
Legacy media operations are enduring debilitating buyouts, layoffs and shutdowns. The nation has lost more than one-third of its newspapers since 2005, with 130 newspapers closing in the most recent 12-month period, according to a 2024 study by Medill Local News Initiative at Northwestern University.
The current political climate has made journalists the boogeymen for all that is wrong with our nation. When Democracy is at its greatest threat, the media is at its weakest.
So, Chicago Women Take Action, a multigenerational activist group, convened a discussion with prominent media makers and communicators.
Last week's virtual program, 'Is the Press Still Free?' posed questions about the role of media in our democracy, the state of journalism, and swirling controversies about media ownership and coverage.The perils are nothing new, but there is hope for new solutions, Sylvia Ewing, vice president of journalism and media engagement at the Public Narrative, told Laurie Glenn, the moderator and president and CEO of Thinkinc.
'I'm here to say that we are at the best of times and the worst of times. … When we look at legacy media, things were not perfect. We always had bias, we always had point of view. We always had fewer Black women or people of color or women leading newsrooms, leading editorial shops. And what we see now, with the advent of the implementation of Project 2025, is frightening, but not insurmountable.'
Now, our imperfect media is suffering from massive losses in advertising revenue and intense competition from the digital explosion and AI. Under Trump's corrosive attacks, some are surrendering, Tracy Baim said. Baim is the founder of the Windy City Times, which reports on the LGBTQ community, and a former publisher of the Chicago Reader.
'I think the problem we've had with some of these national organs is they've never really had to face an administration trying to control them in the way that this one is. And we see how fast they cave because of their business interests. They want mergers. They want, you know, favorability,' Baim said.
She now serves as executive director of Press Forward Chicago, a pooled philanthropic fund housed at the Chicago Community Trust. The plan is to pour millions of dollars into revitalizing local, community-based, independent media organizations in the Chicago area.
'For me, all politics is local,' Baim said. 'All news is local. Everything bubbles up from there.' The water crisis in Flint, Michigan 'was a local story that bubbled up nationally. And then you look to how the trends are across the country with clean water. Well, that's what I believe in: strong local media.'
Fresh out of journalism school, I yearned to hone my craft at one of Chicago's big dailies. Instead, I spent much of my career at The Chicago Reporter, then one of only a handful of nonprofit news outlets in Chicago. Today, there are dozens. These small but mightily independent and award-winning news shops have popped up like tulips in spring.
They represent journalism's bright future. They include the Invisible Institute, which advocates for police and criminal justice reform, and won a Pulitzer Prize last year.
Borderless reports on thorny immigration issues. Chalkbeat is the go-to education watchdog. Block Club Chicago covers city neighborhoods on a micro level. The Investigative Project on Race and Equity deploys data to expose racist and economically unjust policies and practices.
Unlike the bad old days, many actually join forces to collaborate.
No city in the nation boasts as rich a media ecosystem as Chicago. Therein lies the hope. Journalists and media advocates like Ewing say they will 'expand our horizons of what it means to be in journalism and media.'
'How do we … curate and aggregate the existing voices that are reaching lots of people, and then also make sure that others are growing?' Baim asked. 'To me, I'm focused on the local but there are some national voices that are, are, kind of making it through the noise.'
What is happening to the media? Local and independent outlets are well positioned to drown out the noise of capitulation and amplify local, independent voices. Bring them on.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
The parade of presidential pardons is a perversion of justice
There are all sorts of checks and balances baked into the Constitution. But one power sits above the law, untouched by Congress, immune to the courts and utterly unaccountable: the presidential pardon. It is the kind of absolute authority you'd expect in a monarchy, not a democracy. The Founding Fathers thought they were building a system of justice with a human touch — where a president, guided by conscience and compassion, could offer mercy to someone wrongfully convicted or genuinely reformed. The pardon was supposed to heal wounds, not reward political allies or well-heeled donors. Nice idea. Too bad it hasn't always worked out that way. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon after Watergate to help the country move on. It was controversial, sure, but Ford was acting on principle, not personal gain. Contrast that with Bill Clinton, who — on his way out the door — pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive tax cheat whose ex-wife just happened to be a generous Clinton donor. That wasn't mercy. That was transactional politics. Joe Biden used his final hours in office to pardon his son, Hunter, and other family members — along with a few preemptive pardons aimed at blunting potential charges from a future Trump administration. That's not justice. That's insurance. And then there's Donald Trump. Where to begin? Trump opened his second term — on the first day, no less — by pardoning about 1,500 people involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Among them were thugs who assaulted police officers. Then came the pardon parade: Reality television fraudsters Todd and Julie Chrisley. Former Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.), who lied on his taxes. A corrupt sheriff in Virginia. A Nevada politician who pocketed money meant for fallen police officers — and used it to pay for plastic surgery. A nursing home operator who stiffed the IRS out of $10 million. Trump even tossed a pardon to former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) — the same Blagojevich who tried to sell off Barack Obama's Senate seat like it was a used car on Craigslist. Blago, by the way, was also a contestant on Trump's 'Celebrity Apprentice' show. Imagine that. Trump's pardon lawyer — yes, he has one of those now — summed it up with a slogan that belongs on a bumper sticker: 'No MAGA left behind.' That's not a legal doctrine. That's a loyalty program. When presidents start handing out pardons like party favors to friends, donors or political cronies, it's not only the opposite of what the Founding Fathers had it mind, but it also sends a very loud and dangerous message — that the law doesn't apply equally. That who you know matters more than what you did. That justice is just another game for the powerful to rig. And when Biden pardons his own son and Trump pardons his loyal foot soldiers, what are we left with? A pardoning arms race, a perversion of justice that turns the most sacred executive power into a blunt instrument of politics and payback. So why should we care? Because once the ideals put forth in the Constitution become tainted by raw politics — once they're bent, twisted and ignored by the very people sworn to uphold those ideals — the entire democratic experiment begins to buckle. The presidential pardon was meant to show mercy, not mock the law. But in the hands of men more interested in self-preservation and political payback than in public service, it becomes just another tool for corruption. And telling ourselves that 'both sides do it' doesn't make it any less sleazy. Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Substack page. Follow him @BernardGoldberg.
E&E News
an hour ago
- E&E News
Environment issues abound as panel grills Trump judicial picks
Senate Democrats spent much of the first hearing on President Donald Trump's second-term judicial nominees Wednesday grilling his pick for an influential federal appeals court about whether presidents must follow court orders. The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday took up five judicial nominations, spending the bulk of time on Whitney Hermandorfer to serve on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The hearing comes as courts across the country have blocked — at least temporarily — some of Trump's efforts to reshape the federal government, prompting the president and his allies to lash out. Democrats pressed Hermandorfer on whether she would decide against the president. Advertisement 'My role would be to carry out my oath to the Constitution, first and foremost,' Hermandorfer told told Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), adding that she'd rule against the administration 'if that's what the law requires.'
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
3 Key Takeaways From The CBO's Report On The One Big Beautiful Bill
WASHINGTON - JUNE 5: The U.S. Capitol is shown June 5, 2003 in Washington, DC. Both houses of the ... More U.S. Congress, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives meet in the Capitol. (Photo by) The CBO estimates that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will add $2.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade. While these are only estimates, the group's analysis is responsible for helping shed light on the economic impacts of proposed legislation. However, many do not know what this group is and what exactly their estimates mean. This comes as Trump publicly disagrees with the estimate and questions the groups assumptions and qualifications. This article discusses what is the CBO. It then provides three key takeaways from their latest report estimating the economic impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The CBO was established under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. A primary focus of this group is to 'provide objective, nonpartisan information to support the Congressional budget process and to help the Congress make effective budget and economic policy.' The office works with Congressional committees, particularly the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, to help determine the economic impact of their bills. Each year, the CBO produces about a thousand cost estimates and publishes reports about the economy and economic-related issues. The office employs approximately 275 individuals who often have significant work experience and skills in economic forecasting and modeling. While Congress sets the CBO's priorities, the group prides itself on being objective, impartial, and nonpartisan. It does not make any policy recommendations and employs a rigorous set of checks and balances to ensure its estimations are fair and unbiased. As ABC News reported, the headline of the CBO's report was that the impacts of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion. The way that this works is that the CBO estimates that tax revenues will decline by $3.7 trillion due to, among other things, the renewal of the tax provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, as well as enhanced deductions like a higher state and local income tax deduction for individuals. Despite these lower tax collections, the CBO estimates that the bill will not pay for itself as spending will only decrease by $1.3 trillion. Many of these spending decreases are coming from making cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, as I previously discussed on Forbes. The combination of the $3.7 trillion in lost tax revenues and the $1.3 trillion in lower expenses leads to the CBO's estimate of the $2.4 trillion net effect on the deficit. The CBO estimates the impact over the next decade for major budgetary legislation like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. While a $2.4 trillion net impact may seem large, it is important to point out that the projected impacts are over many years. The reports generated by the CBO also break down the impact by provision, allowing policymakers and taxpayers to understand the impact of specific pieces of legislation more directly. For instance, the CBO estimates that the lost tax revenues from not taxing tips will be about $39 billion, whereas the lost revenue from not taxing overtime will be about $124 billion. While many pieces of this legislation will be costly, the provisions that appear to have the most significant price tag are those extending the tax cuts for individual taxpayers that were passed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, and the estimated impact can be seen in their report each year over the next 10 years. According to The Hill, the administration believes the CBO underestimates the economic growth among bills like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In particular, Trump has criticized the CBO for using a 1.8% growth rate, and he even publicly suggested that the group should be using a rate up to five times higher than that. If the CBO underestimates growth, tax revenues may not decline as much as estimated, resulting in a more favorable set of economic outcomes than the CBO predicted. However, not everybody feels as positive about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's financial prospects as Trump. Newsweek reports that Senators like Chuck Schumer and Jodi Ernst have given the bill the nickname the We're All Going To Die Act (in reference to the removal of many key healthcare programs). Even Trump's associate, Elon Musk, took to X to call for the bill to be voted down due to its costs, as reported by The New York Times. Thus, while Trump disagrees with the estimate, it appears as though there are plenty who are looking at the CBO report with heightened skepticism about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's prospects.
