Northwest Arkansas outpaces U.S. in local journalism
Why it matters: Many American neighborhoods lack adequate news coverage for everything from school board meetings and elections to local sports and cultural events.
Driving the news: The U.S. now has 8.2 "local journalist equivalents" (LJEs) for every 100,000 people, down 75% from 2002 on average.
That's according to the Local Journalist Index 2025 from Muck Rack and Rebuild Local News, a local journalism nonprofit.
By the numbers: NWA has a higher than average rate, with 16.1 LJEs in Washington County and 10.4 LJEs in Benton County.
How it works: The findings are based on Muck Rack's data about journalists and media outlets nationwide as of the first quarter of 2025, used to show reporters "most likely covering local communities."
Among other steps, the authors adjusted the number of overall journalists in each county to account for part-timers, plus those who work for big-city outlets but sometimes cover suburban affairs.
The result is the "local journalist equivalent" — a metric similar to "full-time equivalent," which accounts for part-time employees when measuring the size of a workforce. (Read more about the methodology.)
Zoom in: While newsrooms in shrinking towns are certainly hurting, even some growing areas have a below-average number of local journalists.
"For example, Fort Bend County, a suburb of Houston, and Washington County, a suburb of Portland, Oregon — both areas with rapidly growing populations — have about five LJEs per 100,000 people," per the report.
Between the lines: This isn't a purely rural phenomenon, either.
"If you're in a big city like Los Angeles, which has a mere 3.6 LJEs per 100,000 people, your neighborhood might be covered if there's a serious crime but not much else," per the report.
"You may get little reliable information on local candidates in many of L.A. County's cities, whether the schools in your neighborhood are improving, whether the hospital nearby has a bad mortality rate, or how inspiring people might be working to repair your playground."
The other side: The report highlights a few communities running against the trend — like Hooker County, Nebraska, where "one intrepid journalist, Gerri Peterson, covers her community so deeply that, in a county of 679 people, the Hooker County Tribune has 726 paying subscribers."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
8 minutes ago
- Business Insider
A congressional stock trading ban just got closer to becoming law
A bill to ban politicians from trading stocks in office moved one step closer to a vote — but only after an hour of intense argument and insults between Republicans. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee passed the bill on an 8-7 vote. All Democrats voted for it, while every Republican voted against it except one: Josh Hawley of Missouri, who sponsored the bill. The legislation is broadly similar to a bill that passed the same committee last summer, but never received a Senate floor vote. This version would ban members of members of Congress, the president, and the vice president from buying stocks immediately upon enactment, and would block them from selling stocks beginning 90 days after that. It would then require lawmakers to divest entirely from their stock holdings at the beginning of their next term, and it would require the president and vice President to do so beginning in 2029 — after President Donald Trump's current term. It also would not allow for blind trusts, which sets it apart from other similar bills. "I think we have to accept that the American people think that all of us, Democrats and Republicans, are using our positions and our access to enrich ourselves," Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan said during the hearing. "People don't believe that we are here for the right reasons. We have a problem." It is unclear when or if the bill would become law — the next step would be a Senate vote. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said that he believes current disclosure laws are sufficient, while House Speaker Mike Johnson has expressed cautious support for a ban. Trump has said that he would sign a congressional stock trading ban into law. The bill ultimately passed despite the furious objections of several GOP senators on the committee — and tense intraparty debate. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who was the CEO of a plastics manufacturing company before he was elected to the Senate, argued that the stock divestiture requirements would discourage businesspeople from seeking federal office. "We make it very unattractive for people to step up to the plate," Johnson said. "This piece of legislation, really, it's legislative demagoguery." Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the chairman of the committee, said that existing laws banning insider trading and requiring stock trade disclosures were sufficient, calling Hawley's bill a "solution looking for publicity." Another key issue was how the bill would apply to the president and vice president — it would block them from buying and selling stocks, but wouldn't force them to divest any holdings during their current terms. Trump owns individual stocks, while Vance divested from his individual stock holdings during his Senate tenure. Paul argued that the bill would "protect Donald Trump" by not requiring divestiture before 2029, arguing that provision demonstrated that the bill was "crummy." Meanwhile, Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said the bill was an attack on Vance and Trump. "Trump has gone through unbelievable hell," Scott told reporters after the hearing, referring to his indictments and impeachments. He said the bill would "allow the Democrats to go after the President of the United States." Much of the hearing was taken up by Hawley sparring with fellow Republicans on the committee. After Scott raised a question about a provision of the bill applying to illiquid assets, Hawley snapped back at him, pointing out that he supported last year's bill. "It's the same one you voted for last year," Hawley said. At one point, during a tense exchange with Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma over the bill's elimination of blind trusts, Hawley made a passing reference to Scott's wealth. "I practice what I preach. I don't have individual stocks, I don't trade in stocks," Hawley said as Scott sat beside him. "I'm not a billionaire, unlike others on this committee." Scott, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, is one of the wealthiest members of Congress. Minutes later, he said it was "disgusting" to criticize lawmakers for their wealth. "I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money," Scott said as he described his modest upbringing. "This idea that we're going to attack people because they make money is wrong. It's absolutely wrong."
Boston Globe
10 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Emil Bove and the Kavanaugh rule: Loyalty to Trump dictates judicial confirmations, not qualifications
Of course, Trump didn't destroy this power single-handedly. Other precipitating factors, from Justice Clarence Thomas angrily denouncing Anita Hill's credible claims of workplace sexual harassment as a ' Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But a single event turned the judicial confirmation process into the kind of pure, bare-knuckled partisan cage match it is today: Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings, particularly Kavanaugh's Advertisement But back to Bove. There's a reason Bove is uniquely unfit to serve anywhere in the federal judiciary. The reasons are plentiful. He Advertisement But fitness is in the eye of the beholder. And Senate Republicans have a decidedly different eye than I. That was clear during Bove's Bove denied the accusation. But then, after paying brief lip service to the importance of whistleblower protections, he blamed the accuser. 'This is fundamentally a dispute about the challenges posed by the unelected bureaucracy to the unitary executive, and to the people that elected the president and put him in office,' Bove said. Advertisement Translation: How dare this whistleblower go against the imperial president's directives when told by his superiors to follow them? It's clear that Bove's loyalty lies with Trump. That alone is disqualifying not only for a lifetime judiciary post but also for any attorney who works in the Justice Department, whose clients are the American people, not the American president. But that loyalty is exactly what ensured his confirmation. Call it the Kavanaugh rule. In 2018, Kavanaugh appeared at what would be the first of two confirmation hearings in his bid for the high court, demonstrating an aw-shucks demeanor and a desire to steer clear of politics in his answers. 'I need to stay not just away from the line, but three ZIP codes away from the line of current events or politics,' But after Christine Blasey Ford came forward When it was Kavanaugh's turn to respond to Ford's claims, he didn't just deny them. His previous affable and apolitical demeanor was gone, and he stormed right into politics' ZIP code and scorched its earth. 'This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups,' Kavanaugh Advertisement 'This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination,' Kavanaugh said. 'And as we all know in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around.' And with that, Senate Republicans who were initially so worried about Ford's accusations that they refused to question her directly, 'Boy, y'all want power. God, I hope you never get it,' Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina fumed to his Democratic colleagues later during Kavanaugh's hearing. Kavanaugh became a justice, and controversial judicial confirmations became all about political payback, not qualifications. And who could more painfully stick in Democrats' craw than Bove? And that is how we got to a place where a nominee like Bove can become a judge and potentially be one heartbeat away from the highest court in the land. It was hard to watch. But we saw it coming. Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Top Biden aide Steve Ricchetti tells GOP panel ex-president was ‘fully capable'
Steve Ricchetti, who was a top adviser to former President Joe Biden and considered to be in his inner circle, said that Biden was 'fully capable of exercising his presidential duties' in a voluntary interview with the House Oversight and Accountability Committee on Wednesday, according to a prepared introductory statement obtained by The Hill. 'Let me be clear: At all times during his presidency, I believed that President Biden was fully capable of exercising his Presidential duties and responsibilities, and that he did so,' Ricchetti's prepared statement said. 'Neither I, nor anyone else, usurped President Biden's constitutional duties, which he faithfully and fully carried out each and every day.' Ricchetti appeared for a transcribed interview with the House Oversight and Accountability Committee for the Republican-led panel's investigation into Biden's mental acuity and use of an autopen. Ricchetti said there was 'certainly no conspiracy to hide the President's mental condition from the American people,' and that he was 'not aware of any effort by any member of the White House staff to usurp the President's authority to make decisions or to sign important documents without his knowledge.' 'Did he stumble? Occasionally. Make mistakes? Get up on the wrong side of the bed? He did – we all did. But I always believed – every day – that he had the capability, character, and judgment to be President of the United States,' Ricchetti said. Ricchetti appeared voluntarily before the hours-long voluntary interview that started at 10 a.m. on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. He did not answer questions from reporters while heading into the interview. His statement said efforts by Republicans and the Trump administration 'to taint President Biden's legacy with baseless assertions about President Biden's mental health are an obvious attempt to deflect from the chaos of this Administration's first six months.' Ricchetti charged that the House Oversight Committee's investigation 'is part of a concerted effort by the Administration and its Congressional allies to diminish the record of the former President by advancing the false narrative that President Biden was mentally unable to perform his Constitutional duties and that members of his staff usurped the President's Article II powers.' The top Biden aide said he appeared voluntarily because he believed it important to 'forcefully rebut this false narrative about the Biden Presidency and our role in it.' Several other former aides from the Biden administration that the panel has sought testimony from did not appear voluntarily and were subpoenaed by House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.). These Biden aides invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer the committee's questions in recent depositions: Anthony Bernal, former chief of staff to first lady Jill Biden; deputy director of Oval Office operations Annie Tomasini; and Biden's former White House doctor Kevin O'Connor. Others, though, have appeared voluntarily and answered the panel's questions, including former White House chief of staff Ron Klain and former Biden aides Ashley Williams and Neera Tanden. Mike Donilon, another top Biden aide who was a senior advisor to the President, is scheduled to appear for a voluntary interview on Thursday. Other Biden aides scheduled for voluntary transcribed interviews through September include Bruce Reed, former deputy chief of staff for policy; Anita Dunn, former senior advisor to the president for communications, Ian Sams, former special assistant to the president and senior advisor in the White House Counsel's Office; Andrew Bates, a Biden senior deputy press secretary; Karine Jean-Pierre, former White House press Secretary; and Jeff Zients, former White House chief of staff.
