The Awkward Adolescence of a Media Revolution
For anyone who cares about credible information, this is a potentially terrifying prospect. Social media rewards virality, not veracity. Spend five minutes scrolling TikTok or Instagram and you might encounter influencers 'educating' you about a global elite running the world from 'hidden continents' behind an 'ice wall' in Antarctica, or extolling the virtues of zeolite, 'a volcanic binder for mold' that will 'vacuum clean all kinds of toxins' to lift brain fog, prevent cancer, and remove microplastics from testicles. (Link to purchase in bio.) It's an environment perfectly engineered to scale both misinformation and slick grifts.
And yet the popular notion that social media is just a dumpster fire of viral lies misses something vital: Millions of people still care about truth. They are seeking facts on social media from credible voices they can trust. They just aren't always sure where to find it or from whom.
I know because I interact with these people every day. I was among the first independent journalists to bring news reporting to Instagram; today my outlet, News Not Noise, spans Instagram, YouTube, a podcast, Substack, and other platforms. In my years of directly engaging with an on-platform audience, the question I receive more than any other remains simply, 'Is this true?'
I'm here to tell you the truth isn't dead. Thousands of people like me operate online as what I call 'evidence-based creators.' We're journalists and specialists who use expertise, original reporting, and reliable sources to refute misinformation, add context to breaking news, and answer the endless questions flooding our DMs. The topics we cover range from redistricting to medical misinformation, beauty fads to whether that viral health-food trend might actually kill you.
The work is an uphill battle. My cohort is not John Oliver–level media personalities with PR teams, production crews, and a research staff to fact-check the punch lines. We are independent voices operating without safety nets. I like to think of us as the digital equivalent of artisanal chefs working in a factory for mass-produced junk food. The very things that make us valuable—our obsession with facts, our commitment to nuance, our hours spent answering audience questions in the apps—put us at a profound disadvantage in the attention economy. What does it take to produce a slick video claiming that beef tallow is nature's Viagra? Fifteen minutes with an iPhone and zero regard for reality. While we're still sourcing assertions and trying to make complex ideas both accurate and engaging, the bullshit factory has already pumped out six more viral falsehoods.
Our secret weapon isn't production value or algorithm hacking; it's trust. When I debunk a viral lie, I'm not a faceless institution. I'm the person who's been with my audience while they brush their teeth every morning, the person who's been in their ears during commutes, the person whose face they've studied through hundreds of 90-second windows into complex issues. This isn't an audience of passive consumers. They're hungry for more—more reporting on more topics, more conversations with experts, more explanations that break things down but don't treat an audience like idiots. 'Can the Supreme Court disbar an attorney?' 'Will the military disobey unconstitutional orders?' 'Do I need another measles vaccine as an adult?'
All of this leaves evidence-based creators in a strange limbo. We're clearly valued; Substack, for instance, is proving that audiences are willing to stop scrolling and financially support 'verifiers' they trust. But we're still largely disconnected from the resources and collaborative frameworks that could multiply our impact. We're working so hard at the work itself that we have little opportunity to build the scaffolding required to create a durable new model in digital publishing—one that includes tools such as high-powered marketing and growth engines to reach new audiences, editorial oversight to help with difficult judgment calls, and shared research that would prevent each of us from having to build expertise from scratch with every breaking story.
I see this obstacle as an opportunity. History shows us that industries facing technological disruption tend not to simply collapse—they transform. Look at what happened to the music industry when Spotify and its streaming cohort crashed the party. In the old days, musicians lived and died by album sales and radio play, with major labels acting as gatekeepers. Then streaming blew the doors off.
The revolution was messy. Many artists found themselves with more listeners than ever but paychecks that wouldn't cover a month's worth of ramen. What helped the music industry find its footing wasn't nostalgia for CDs or vinyl. It was new infrastructure: playlist curation that helped listeners find their next obsession, analytics tools that told artists who was actually listening, distribution services that got music onto platforms, and business models that went beyond streaming royalties to include direct-to-fan revenue and merchandising.
Artists still face challenges, but now labels are investing heavily in data to understand trends, offering artists different types of deals, and using their marketing muscle to help artists cut through the digital noise. The industry evolved by creating tools that complemented streaming algorithms instead of fighting them—helping artists understand their audiences, not just pray for a decent playlist placement.
In our current information ecosystem, we're stuck in the awkward adolescence of a media revolution. The need for innovation couldn't be more urgent. Local newspapers are dying like mall food courts— 2,500-plus have shut down since 2005. Traditional media outlets are under assault by the Trump administration. And AI is flooding us with convincing fake content, making human truth tellers all the more necessary.
Conversations about the press and the tech revolution often get stuck on the problems with or the inadequacy of any solution. It's time that changed. So I'll take the leap and propose some imperfect innovations. First, audiences could benefit from an independent, off-platform certification system to help them discern which independent voices adhere to journalistic standards. Not to be all 'Papers, please' about it, but audiences need signals about who's committed to accuracy versus who's just chasing likes. One solution: a nonprofit voluntary opt-in LEED-type certification that awards something like a blue check mark—but vetted far more rigorously—to creators who use agreed-upon trusted sources, check their facts, and reveal when their content is sponsored. I'm aware that any credentialing system risks backlash from those suspicious of 'gatekeeping.' But people shouldn't be disparaged for 'doing their own research' if they aren't offered the tools to tell reality from fiction.
Second, evidence-based creators need support. Imagine a fractional-ownership model where like-valued creators buy into a shared professional framework. With an economy of scale, we could collectively share in things such as legal protection and sophisticated audience-development tools designed specifically for evidence-based content. We could sign sponsors who understand the unique value of trusted voices. We could offer bundled subscriptions to help audiences find more of us at once. This could create sustainable revenue streams without compromising integrity.
Finally, legacy media, please stop viewing creators as a threat. We don't have to be competitors—we can be the connective tissue between trusted journalism and the platforms where people now consume most of their information. Traditional media outlets can stay relevant in the new digital reality by partnering with us. But first, it'd help if they'd allow for the possibility that what's happening isn't just the death of an old system—it's the messy, complicated birth of a new one. And like a newborn, it needs more than good intentions in order to thrive.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
36 minutes ago
- USA Today
Americans are shifting away from wanting kids. I'm worried for my generation.
Today's culture often celebrates personal freedom and career milestones. What about raising a family? It's the question we all eventually get asked in our lives, several times. 'What do you see yourself eventually doing?' As a young person still figuring some things out, you can imagine how often I get that one, whether it's from my fellow classmates, my professors or my friends' parents. My first instinct is to talk about the family I hope to raise, but I know the question is likely about my professional ambitions instead. It's understandable – a career can certainly provide one with a sense of duty and purpose. Indeed, 71% of American adults state that having an enjoyable job is extremely important for living a fulfilling life. But only 26% say the same about having children. Do Americans need to have more kids? This red state shows how to help families. | Opinion We are seeing a culture shift away from family The lack of priority given to one's future family is deeply worrying nowadays. It reflects a larger cultural shift: Fewer Americans are getting married and having children. Why is this the case, especially when almost half of Americans agree that fewer people choosing to have kids would negatively impact the country? Some cite affordability, environmental concerns and bad memories of their own childhood. Most Americans ages 18-49 who doubt they'll reproduce, however, say they simply don't want to. People increasingly view becoming a parent as burdensome, and while it is true that raising a kid demands hard work and sacrifice, America's aversion to starting a family has its consequences. I love being a mom. Why do many progressives tear down motherhood? | Opinion Recently released data shows that the fertility rate in the United States has dropped to a record low of less than 1.6 births per woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1. This means we are trending toward a future with more retirees and fewer working-age adults, which threatens long-term economic growth, increases pressure on social services and erodes support networks for the elderly. We can look at South Korea as a warning, which had a fertility rate of 0.75 in 2024, and that wasn't even the lowest on record. Over the next 60 years, that nation's population is projected to halve, and by this point, people ages 65 and older will make up approximately 58% of the population. Health care and pension costs are expected to soar, and a rise in lonely, isolated deaths is a concern. I'm concerned about what young people want Just a few months ago, during Harvard University's finals season, I overheard a conversation between two other students at the library. One of them was saying he was excited for his post-grad life because he'd be making money on Wall Street, drinking and getting high with his friends, and entering a string of noncommitted relationships. For him, that was the reason he was attending college for four years. That mindset, although disappointing to hear now, will do more than disappoint us later. It points to a grim, childless future. Today's culture often celebrates personal freedom and career milestones, while less glamorous moments that give life incredible meaning are pushed to the side. Of course, this isn't to say that everyone should have or want kids – there are other goals worth pursuing. But for countless young people, parenthood remains an overlooked path. It isn't a detour from your career; it can be one of the most rewarding vocations. But there remains hope. In the United States, parenthood is associated with happiness and fulfillment. The Institute for Family Studies finds that 37% of married parents between 18 and 50 years old describe themselves as very happy, compared with 26% of married nonparents. Among unmarried adults, 16% of parents report being very happy, compared with 14% of nonparents. Additionally, while many acknowledge the stress and fatigue that come with raising children, 80% of parents say it is enjoyable all or most of the time, and 82% of parents believe it is rewarding. Yes, parenting is difficult. But young people these days rarely hear about the joys of raising children. Instead, the ideal life is often portrayed as one with total freedom and zero responsibility – one that is inevitably childless. Elizabeth Choi is an intern for USA TODAY Opinion and a student at Harvard University.
Newsweek
37 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump's 401(k) Change: What Administrators and Employees Need to Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's recent executive order has opened the door for alternative investments to be included in 401(k) plans, potentially reshaping how the savings of millions of Americans are managed. In the order, entitled "Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401(k) Investors," the president laid out a road map for the incorporation of such assets, including private equity, real estate and cryptocurrency, into Americans' retirement accounts. What to Know The executive order does not alter existing laws around workplace retirement plans, but instructs the Department of Labor to examine how to revise guidance to make such investments more accessible. However, the announcement marks a major win for those in the respective asset industries, who have long been lobbying for a chance to tap into the roughly $12.2 trillion held in retirement savings plans. President Donald Trump listens to questions from reporters in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC. Coins in a jar. President Donald Trump listens to questions from reporters in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC. Coins in a jar. Win McNamee //Getty Images / GDA via AP Images "For decades, public pension funds have invested in private assets because they deliver strong returns over the long term and are a smart, safe way to diversify retirement savings," said Will Dunham, president of the American Investment Council, a trade association and lobbying group that represents the U.S. private equity industry. "President Trump's EO [executive order] is a great step that will help all Americans enjoy the same benefits of stronger returns and a secure retirement." But others believe retirement portfolios should be conservatively managed, and are wary of introducing any additional complexities or risk, as well as the higher fees that could themselves eat into savings. "Alternative investments are typically less liquid and volatile, meaning that investors may not have immediate access to funds and are likely to be exposed to more risk," said economist Gopi Shah Goda, director of the Brookings Institution's Retirement Security Project. "They also typically carry higher fees, dipping into the return premiums mentioned earlier." Newsweek spoke with attorneys and private equity experts about what those participating in the plans—and those benefiting from them—need to know before embracing these new investment options. What Administrators Need to Know Simon Tang, Accelex "For administrators, the biggest challenge is the transparency gap," said Tang, director and head of U.S. at Accelex, a fintech firm that provides tools for private markets investors. "General partners of private funds are steadfast in maintaining privacy and confidentiality when it comes to their investments in private companies, which should drive their competitive advantage over other fund managers," he told Newsweek. "However, retail investors will expect the same clear, timely information that they're used to in public markets and even in crypto but where private equity still falls short." To bridge this transparency gap, Tang said administrators will "need to invest in private markets-specific AI and automation to access, extract, standardize, and present insights to the retirement investors; otherwise, they risk losing these investors to competitors who can." Bill Cox, KBRA "Private markets are a source of systemic strength, and their democratization can benefit both retail and institutional investors when accessed with proper due diligence and understanding of their unique characteristics," said Cox, head of corporate, financial, and government ratings at the New York-based rating agency. Cox told Newsweek that expanding into alternative assets "requires careful consideration of liquidity risks, fee structures, and the critical importance of manager selection." "Performance variability will have far more to do with which managers 401(k) investors select, rather than whether they allocated to alternatives, and we expect this manager differentiation to grow over the next 3-5 years," he said. Carol McClarnon, Carlton Fields McClarnon, an attorney specializing in the financial services industry, said the main thing plan sponsors and fund managers must be aware of is increased "litigation risk." "There are law firms that focus on filing 'excessive fee' lawsuits against 401(k) plan sponsors and financial professionals," she told Newsweek, but noted that Trump's executive order also instructs the Department of Labor to address this in its upcoming guidance. "Plan sponsors and employees who are open to private equity but lack the expertise can focus on pooled investment funds that are managed by advisers with significant expertise," she added. John Hunt, Sullivan & Worcester "Currently, the biggest exposure is to plan fiduciaries, and the liabilities they have in deciding which investments to make available to plan participants," said Hunt, a partner at the global law firm. "For both plan fiduciaries and employees, the most significant questions are understanding the risks and expenses of alternative investments, that is, how financially literate do they need to be before it is prudent for them to invest in these types of investments," he said. Tom Hogan, Haynes Boone Hogan, employee benefits counsel at the corporate law firm, said that the higher fees associate with private equity could "subject the plan sponsor to fiduciary litigation." "A plan sponsor is subject to a fiduciary standard of care and prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the statute that applies to private sector retirement plans) when selecting or monitoring investments." Hunt noted that there also exist "liquidity and valuation issues," given alternative investments are not easily sold or converted to cash, and that the clear, real-time value of private equity is hard to determine. The Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP) Private market assets are "are harder to value and harder to exit," the private equity watchdog told Newsweek. "It's harder to know what something is really worth. Unlike stocks, private equity funds don't trade on an exchange, so the value is based on what the fund says it's worth. That makes it easier to get wrong—and could lead to disputes or lawsuits from workers if they feel they didn't get a fair deal." The group added that private equity "often reports returns in ways that make them look better than they are." "Without clear, standardized yardsticks, it's hard for plan managers to tell if the investment is actually worth it." What Employees Need to Know Simon Tang, Accelex "For employees, there are several concerns of private equity investing including the higher fees, inherent complexity and opacity, and also the unique return, risk and liquidity profile of this asset class," said Tang. "Resolving these concerns will require substantial education and data-driven knowledge transfer." "Another key risk that needs to be examined and understood is asset allocation and portfolio construction," he told Newsweek. "The general public is used to parking their paycheck money in a 401(k) and then simply selecting from the different flavors of listed equities and bonds." Introducing private equity into this mix, Tang believes, will require employees "to determine their exposure and diversification goals," as "allocating their entire 401(k) to private equity would indeed be a risk." "Anyone considering allocating part of their retirement savings to private equity should understand and educate themselves on the nuances, advantages and disadvantages of private equity," he added. "And they should expect a very different experience from the instant pricing and real-time updates of public markets." Rob Sichel, K&L Gates Sichel, a partner at the global law firm, said the main risk for plan participants will be in "ensuring that they are investing in products that have been prudently designed to effectively operate within a defined contribution plan." In other words, participants must first understand whether a fund has sufficient liquidity and manageable fees, and whether it is "overseen by a fiduciary with sufficient expertise." "Even if such an investment is available in a plan's investment lineup, plan participants should make sure an investment is prudent given the participant's specific situation," he added. Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP) "Higher costs eat into savings," the watchdog told Newsweek. "Private equity funds usually charge much higher fees than index funds—sometimes multiple layers of them—and those fees add up over time, leaving you with less money at retirement." It added that money in private equity investments is typically "locked up longer." "You can sell a stock or bond fund any day. With private equity, you may have to wait years to get your money out, and even then, you might get less than you expect." PESP was also surprised that the executive order encouraged investments in private equity, given that private equity funds have largely underperformed the S&P 500 over the past few years. Russ Ivinjack, Aon "For employees, it means potentially higher costs and less liquidity," said Ivinjack, Aon's global chief investment officer. "Unlike public equities, private investments don't offer daily pricing or straightforward disclosures," he told Newsweek. "That's why we recommend using private assets only in professionally managed portfolios, like target date funds, where trained fiduciaries are making decisions on your behalf." What Happens Next? As the experts noted, the executive order only instructs the Department of Labor to review existing regulations and guidance around alternative investments. "At the moment, there are no formal proposals," said John Hunt of Sullivan & Worcester. "Just a direction to the DOL to think about and come up with a plan—and thus nothing to react to other than the optimism of potential changes." "This isn't an overnight transformation," Simon Tang told Newsweek. "Private equity won't suddenly appear in every 401(k) plan." "Returns can be attractive, but fees are higher, investments are less liquid, and performance data is harder to come by," he added. "It remains to be seen how this change will be implemented." Trump gave the Department of Labor 180 days to reexamine guidance and clarify the government's position on alternative assets—including private market investments, real estate interests and digital assets—in 401(k)s.
Los Angeles Times
7 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump tax law could cause Medicare cuts if Congress doesn't act, CBO says
WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficits caused by President Trump's tax and spending law could trigger automatic cuts to Medicare if Congress does not act, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Friday. The CBO estimates that Medicare, the federal health insurance program for Americans over age 65, could potentially see as much as $491 billion in cuts from 2027 to 2034 if Congress does not act to mitigate a 2010 law that forces across-the-board cuts to many federal programs once legislation increases the federal deficit. The latest report from CBO showed how Trump's signature tax and spending law could put new pressure on federal programs that are bedrocks of the American social safety net. Trump and Republicans pledged not to cut Medicare as part of the legislation, but the estimated $3.4 trillion that the law adds to the federal deficit over the next decade means that many Medicare programs could see cuts. In the past, Congress has always acted to mitigate cuts to Medicare and other programs, but it would take some bipartisan cooperation to do so. Democrats, who requested the analysis from CBO, jumped on the potential cuts. 'Republicans knew their tax breaks for billionaires would force over half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts — and they did it anyway,' Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement. 'American families simply cannot afford Donald Trump's attacks on Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.' Hospitals in rural parts of the country are already grappling with cuts to Medicaid, which is available to people with low incomes, and cuts to Medicare could exacerbate their shortfalls. As Republicans muscled the bill through Congress and are now selling it to voters back home, they have been critical of how the CBO has analyzed the bill. They have also argued that the tax cuts will spur economic growth and pointed to $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals that was included in the package. Groves writes for the Associated Press.
