Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
As we begin a new year in 2025, news reporting is undergoing
substantial transformation influenced by technology advancements,
changing audience behaviors, and evolving economic models. What's
changing:

Generative Artificial intelligence is being integrated into
newsrooms to automate content creating and personalize news
delivery, apparently enhancing efficiency and user engagement.
However there are concerns about the accuracy and authenticity of
AI-generated content.

Traditional news orgs are facing economic challenges, including
declining ad revenues and competition from digital platforms. The
media landscape is increasingly fragmented, diminishing the
influence of legacy outlets. 

Audience engagement is shifting, mindshare is fragmented, diverse
social media and independent creators are becoming primary news
sources, especially for younger demographics. 

Trust in media is a huge issue, with many skeptical of news
organizations. A proliferation of misinformation and the perceived
biases in reporting have contributed to this distrust. Media need to
rebuild credibility through transparent reporting practices, and to
engage communities in the process of journalism. 
  

    
We've assembled a panel of experts to discuss the state of the news
in 2025. They include:

Dan Gillmor spent decades in the news media and was technology
columnist at the San Jose Mercury News in Silicon Valley from 1994
to 2005. He later taught at Arizona State University's Walter
Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication. His books
about media include "We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the
people, for the people." More about Dan at dangillmor.com/about

Wendy M. Grossman is a freelance writer who specializes in
computers, freedom, and privacy. She is also founder of Britain's
The Skeptic magazine, and a folksinger.

Janis Mara has worked at the Oakland Tribune, the Marin Independent
Journal, the Contra Costa Times, Adweek and Inman News, an
Emeryville-based national real estate trade publication, winning
California Newspaper Publishers Association and Digital First Media
awards for investigative work, breaking news coverage and education
writing.

John P. McAlpin is a veteran reporter, editor and newsroom leader
based in New Jersey largely focused on politics and public policy. 
McAlpin has worked for organizations including The Associated Press,
The Bergen Record, The USA Today Network and is now the managing
editor for NJ Spotlight News, a nonprofit newsroom for NJ PBS/WNET
Thirteen.

Peter Richardson's publications include books and articles about
Ramparts magazine, Hunter S. Thompson, Rolling Stone magazine, and
Carey McWilliams, the radical California author and lawyer who
edited The Nation magazine. 

John Schwartz worked for nearly 40 years for The New York Times, The
Washington Post and Newsweek, on beats that included climate change,
legal affairs, space, infrastructure and business. In 2021 he
retired from the Times and began a second career teaching journalism
at The University of Texas at Austin, his alma mater.

Ben Shapiro is a New York-based documentary maker working in radio
and film. For 25 years he has edited and co-produced the Radio
Diaries series airing on NPR's All Things Considered, and he
recently co-directed with Sam Pollard Max Roach: The Drum Also
Waltzes, which premiered on PBS' American Masters and screened
worldwide.

Paula Span is a veteran reporter and journalism educator, with long
stints at the Washington Post and Columbia Journalism School. She
has freelanced for a raft of national and local publications, has
published two books and is at work on a third, and has written the
New Old Age column for the New York Times since 2009.

Veteran journalist and author Emily Gertz, an Inkwell.vue cohost,
will lead the discussion. Emily has been covering the environment
from diverse angles including technology, science, politics, policy,
international climate negotiations, nature, religion and pop
culture. She is a contributing editor at "DeSmog" and "The
Conversation."
  

    

Thanks for joining Inkwell for the second annual edition of State of
the News. Soooo much to discuss:

What will the big stories be in 2025?

We're years and years into predictions/desperate hopes that
nonprofit news and news collaborations will "save journalism". So:
How's that going?

Tippy-top political leaders are generating as well as echoing
profoundly destructive disinformation (as well as the less-dire
kind). Along with plain old credulousness, the public's will to
examine this information and hold people accountable for lies is at
a low point. What are effective roles for journalists and news
publications amid these crises of truth, trust and apathy?

Will US press writ large be able to stand up to intensifying threats
and intimidation, particularly now that a majority of us journalists
are freelancers with no professional insurance and, probably, no
indemnification clauses in their contracts? Signs so far are not
encouraging, with even presumably well-insulated entities like Joe
and Mika and Zuck and Bezos and Soon-Shiong and Disney bending the
knee.
  

    
Lots of avenues for conversation here. Regarding emilyg's last
question: 

When the president and his henchmen and cult followers declared war
on journalism they don't like in 2017, the response should not have
been Marty Baron's misguided "We're not at war; we're at work"
feel-good aphorism. 

The response should have been to find allies and fight like hell for
freedom of expression, and for democracy itself. Most of our
traditional journalism institutions couldn't be bothered to lift a
finger to do either of those things. 

Big Journalism has relentlessly normalized extremism. Bending a knee
to it is, sadly, not surprising.

Now what? We're in for a concerted right-wing campaign to Orban-ize
journalism. It's not too late for powerful media companies to fight
like hell. Call me pessimistic on that.

I'm focusing my attention more on the nonprofits and grassroots
organizations. They can't save journalism by themselves, but without
them there is zero hope. I'll point to some of them during our
extended conversation. They deserve people's attention, and support.
  

    
I'll be adding a few to Dan's list. I'd also note that there's a bunch of
what used to be journalism going on inside NGOs and academia. I am currently
concernd that Elon Musk is using Trump's old trolling playbook to get
himself constant attention allowing him to set the agenda in Europe. The
good news is that the early results are that his favorability rating in
Britain has dropped to -62. Even so, it looks to me like some journalists
are falling into the old Trump trap of writing the easy shock-horror story
about what EM just said.

wg
  

    
I feel spoiled here in the media-abundant Northeast. Boston has a
decent mainline daily, the Globe - although I note that virtually
all non-local news now comes from the NY Times and UPI - the Globe
reporting staff is a fraction of what it was. (There is also a
tabloid, the Herald, about which I know nothing.)

But, we also have hyperlocal publications, including hyperlocal
Boston coverage at <https://www.universalhub.com/>, and two, count
'em, TWO web dailies in my own relatively wealthy suburb.

That seems widely unusual.

How unusual is it? Are we regenerating local news coverage in
general, or is it still a vanishing breed?
  

    
We interrupt the conversation briefly for this public service
announcement:

This annual State of the News conversation is publicly accessible,
meaning anyone can read it, whether or not they are a member of the
WELL, which is the online community platform hosting this two-week
discussion.

For non-members, here's a short link for easy access:
<https://tinyurl.com/SOTN-2025>.

The full link is:
<https://people.well.com/conf/inkwell.vue/topics/553/State-of-the-News-2025-pag
e01.html>.

Either link will open the first page of the public conversation. If
you are not a WELL member, we encourage you to visit regularly as
the discussion will expand across multiple pages. Use the pager
(dropdown menus at the top and bottom of the page) to navigate
through the conversation as it evolves.

Feel free to share either link via social media, email, etc.

If you're not a member of the WELL, you can't post a response
directly. However we welcome your comments and questions - you can
email them to inkwell (at) well.com, and we'll post them here on
your behalf.

If you'd like to participate in more discussions like this, consider
joining the WELL: <https://www.well.com/join/>. The WELL is an
online community with vibrant, thoughtful conversations on a wide
range of topics---an excellent alternative to the fast-paced,
drive-by posting on social media.

This conversation will continue for two weeks, through January 27.
  

    

Hi, everybody -- the attacks on the media are only going to get worse in
Trump II: This Time It's Personal.

   As many others have noted, he's back and will surround himself with
people who care even less about norms, laws and the Constitution. And he has
a number of judges who have suggested it's time to reassess the press
protections under NYT v. Sullivan and other case law.

   ABC settling its defamation case with Trump is a bad sign for all media:

<https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/14/politics/trump-abc-news-defamation-lawsuit-
settle/index.html>

   ... along with the failures of the WP and LAT to show any vestige of
spine in the face of the coming administration.

   I don't think we're doomed. But I think we're in for a very rough ride.
  

    
You know that supposed ancient curse (which is probably hooey): "May
you live in interesting times." ?

For those of us who work in, use or care about journalism, these are
way-too-interesting times.

I'll note that in just the past couple of days, we can see these
disparate forces at play.

Take a look at the NYT home page and see what remarkable resources
and talent a world-class news organization can throw at a major
national story like the LA fires. (Yes, I know people are pissed off
at the NYT's political coverage and its opinion writers, but let's
put that aside for right now.)

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/01/14/us/fires-los-angeles-california


By my very rough byline and photo credit count, the Times had
something like 25 reporters, seven photographers, more than a dozen
graphic and data people creating maps and charts, and several
researchers on the story in the past week. It's extraordinary. I'm
sure the LA Times, despite its dismaying rich-guy owner, is doing
great work too.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/01/14/us/fires-los-angeles-california

And then yesterday, the latest defection from the WashPost over the
indefensible actions of ITS rich-guy owner: opinion writer Jennifer
Rubin. The exodus of talented writers and editors, and editorial
cartoonist Ann Telnaes (whose work calling out the Trump obeisance
of various tech bro including her boss), is dispiriting. I'm one of
the Post alums here, and it's sickening to watch. 

https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2025/jennifer-rubin-the-contrarian-norm-eis
en-washington-post/

So rich-guy owners are clearly not the solution to our media woes
and it's not clear that nonprofit newsrooms -- a hopeful
development, as Dan points out, but most are still pretty small and
their funding is not assured -- are either.
  

    
As a reporter in the trenches, I certainly agree about the rough
ride. I can tell by daily experience that the media is losing
ground: For example, last year when I was working on a story, I was
told I could not interview any city officials, but would have to
pose my questions to the city's information officer.

At the same time, it's apparent that local news coverage is vital,
and greatly appreciated. A 3.5 magnitude earthquake hit the city of
Concord Sunday, shaking an area full of stores and a synagogue. I
called the shops and the synagogue - turned out services started at
8:30 a.m. and the quake hit at 8:49, just as a member of the
congregation was about to put on tefilllin for the first time.

I wrote a story, and my source, the rabbi, searched and found it
online. He texted  me, "I saw that the Tefillin made it to SFGate. I
shared it with our community. Thank you."

https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/update-shaking-reported-but-no-inj
uries-or-20030275.php
  

    
I'm wondering if American journalists will become diaspora
journalists over the next four years?
  

    

The WaPo is sinking deeper into the shit:

<https://bsky.app/profile/jamisonfoser.bsky.social/post/3lfnyxnxd2s2k>

@jamisonfoser.bsky.social
New, from me: The Washington Post Editorial Board previously said these Trump
nominees "spread treacherous disinformation, "sabotage democracy,"
and "parrot false claims about fraud."

Now The Post endorses them.

referencing tthis column:

<https://www.findinggravity.net/p/the-washington-post-just-endorsed>
The Washington Post just endorsed 19 Trump nominees. Here are the 5 worst.
  

    
It didn't exactly "endorse" them.  It said they were "acceptable." 
And five, including Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr and Pete Hegseth, were
"unacceptable."  (As if Trump gives a fuck what the Post says
anyway.)

But yeah, it's disheartening. 
  

    
I'm thrilled with this panel. Great job, hosts.

Of course broadcast news has its own challenges. MSNBC is having a
changing of the guard - Rashida Jones is stepping down.

Gift link:

<https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/14/business/media/msnbc-rashida-jones-stepping
-down.html?unlocked_article_code=1.pE4.hTLq.G712A0wFfiJI&smid=url-share>
  

    

Great to hear from a broadcast maven, Angie! It's my impression that
newspapers have taken the worst hit? I was thinking TV news is still
doing OK? 
  

    
Meanwhile, Jennifer Rubin and Neal Eisner have corralled the cream
of the castoffs and the top shelf substackers (the Venn overlaps) to
launch a new multifaceted newsroom destination property a week
before the inauguration. Quite an impressive roster and they managed
to get it on wheels with minimal leakage. Joyce Vance is adding
Democracy Index to the property, an online remedial civics class and
vital signs report. Could be a game changer. Their masthead motto
"We don't belong to anyone" suggests they are aiming high.
  

    
Not Neal Eisner, Norm Eisen!
  

    

Are you guys saying a new online news outlet has launched? What is
its name?
  

    

Is this what you mean? The Contrarian?

https://contrarian.substack.com/p/welcome-to-the-contrarian
  

    
>Not Neal Eisner

Doh! Sorry, posted from my phone and working from unreliable
memory...
  

    
And yes, Janis, that's what I was referring to.
  

    
Jon asks a very dark question: "I'm wondering if American
journalists will become diaspora journalists over the next four
years?"

A "yes" would suggest that Trump will succeed in going full-on Orban
or Putin on the nation very, very quickly. That he'll nationalize
the media and shut down what he can't nationalize and plausibly
threaten journalists with mortal peril on a scale this country has
never experienced.

So my forecast is: No.
  

    
Re Jennifer Rubing's departure from the Post: This may seem to be a
slight tangent, but I believe it's directly related to the future of
online news. 

It's great that Rubin -- whose evolution as a columnist has been
remarkable to watch (in a good way) -- moved away from the
Trump-nuzzling Post.

It's awful that she moved to a platform -- Substack -- that was
funded by Trump financial supporters and advocates, and is run by
people who are perfectly fine with helping extremists monetize their
bile. (Please see this from Casey Newton at Platformer --
https://www.platformer.news/why-platformer-is-leaving-substack/ --
and this from Molly White --
https://www.citationneeded.news/substack-to-self-hosted-ghost/ --
for some further details on why they left.)

I do read some newsletters published on the platform (via an RSS
reader). But I won't subscribe to or pay for anything there. If
Jennifer Rubin and Norm Eisen had chosen any other newsletter
platform, I'd already be backing them with my time and money.

But they're helping a company I consider bad news to roll up the
newsletter space. It's regrettable, to put it mildly, not to mention
short sighted. Substack's spending spree on writers will eventually
need to be recouped (enshittification on the way), and writers will
someday regret taking the easy way. 

Creators are choosing convenience over (IMO) integrity, or don't
check out alternatives. Here we go again.
  

    

well, good luck avoiding enshittification. it's hard to get angry at a
writer who wants to make $50 a week being heard out there in the howling
chaos. i spent years railing against Facebook and Twitter and the
railroading of content, news, information, and conversation -- and
especially, against what these platforms and their owners have done to our
kids. 

not sure it matters one whit. the same people who don't like Substack are
often the ones who make sure they're still platforming themselves on x,
Twitter, TikTok, etc etc. 

this is a great panel! thanks emily and jon, for setting up this
conversation.

two questions:

1) if we're so smart -- journalists, skeptics, fact-chasers, academics,
thinkers, intellectuals, particularly of a liberal bent -- why are we
losing the battle for news and supposedly accurate information? big picture
question, here. it's not just "Trump and the rich people are bad." can we
analyze ourselves and our own role in this devolution? are we willing to do
that?

2) oh, never mind. let's try #1 first.


- t. lee brown
  small-town newspaper columnist
  in sisters, oregon
  

    
> why are we losing the battle for news and supposedly accurate information?

The splintering of mass media, the destruction of local papers, the 
increasing concentration of radio in just a few hands, the vast right-wing 
media machine, distrust of institutions, the enormous amount of 
misinformation, the impact on education of private schools and home 
schooling where kids don't actually learn factual information or critical 
thinking; the impact of right-wing religious orgs.
  

    
That's a good list, Lisa.