The Washington Post’s famous slogan, “Democracy dies in darkness,” is sadly coming true in many parts of the US. The digital age has shattered the business model of newspapers, turning many communities into “news deserts” with no local journalism. About 2,500 daily or weekly newspapers in the US have folded since 2005 and there are now fewer than 6,500 left. Every week, two more disappear.
The decline of local journalism is driven by many factors, but economic challenges top the list.
Earlier in the Internet era, Craigslist supplanted the classified ads that previously funded newspaper journalism. Then came the big digital platforms, which put the final nails in the coffin of the traditional advertising model. Starved of revenue, local news outlets have had to lay off staff, reduce coverage areas or shut down altogether.
According to Pew Research, the number of local newsroom employees in the US fell by 57 percent between 2008 and 2020, resulting in thousands of “ghost newspapers” that barely cover their own communities. Small local newspapers simply do not have the scale to compete against digital advertising giants like Google and Facebook.
Media industry consolidation has also played a role in the decline of local journalism. In recent years, many smaller newspapers have become part of larger conglomerates that are focused wholly on profits, usually at the expense of local reporting. As a result, news coverage has been homogenized and coverage of local issues has suffered, with editorial decisions being made at the corporate level rather than by journalists on the ground.
It should go without saying that local journalism is vital for informing citizens about government decisionmaking, community events and the local issues that will most directly affect them. The traditional local newspaper served as a watchdog, holding local officials accountable and facilitating public engagement. Without local journalism, citizens become less informed and corruption becomes more likely, leading to a decline in voter turnout and erosion of democratic institutions.
Worse, the absence of credible information allows for the proliferation of misinformation, rumors and outlandish conspiracy theories, further undermining trust in the democratic process.
The decline of local journalism has also contributed to political polarization more broadly. As local newspapers diminish in number and influence, citizens increasingly rely on national news outlets, which tend to be more partisan. Without local outlets offering neutral and balanced reporting, citizens are pulled into echo chambers, consuming only media that align with their pre-existing beliefs.
The creation of “filter bubbles” by social-media algorithms means that the electorate increasingly lacks a foundation of shared facts and information. As news consumers become less exposed to competing points of view, polarization deepens.
However, it does not have to be this way. Nonprofit news organizations, community-supported journalism and membership-based models have emerged as potential alternatives to the traditional advertising-driven approach. Most of these models rely on community engagement and philanthropic support, and new entrants have already become essential for local journalism in many areas.
For example, in the space of less than a decade, the nonprofit CalMatters has increased its staff of journalists covering California politics and other issues to 40, providing crucial information and accountability for the state’s economy.
Moreover, many community foundations have become homes for journalistic fundraising and, in some cases, for journalists, too. Larger foundations are supporting journalists who cover their areas of interest, from climate change and education to inequality. Over the past decade, philanthropic spending on journalism in the US has nearly quadrupled to more than US$250 million per year. TheGuardian.org alone has more than a dozen funders providing at least US$500,000 per year.
However, much more is needed.
Steve Waldman, the president of Rebuild Local News and a cofounder of Report for America, estimates that it will cost US$1.5 billion per year to restore local journalism by employing about 25,000 reporters on salaries of US$60,000 per year. While substantial, that is equal to a mere 0.02 percent of US government spending — or less than US$0.5 per American per month. For comparison, there are nearly 700 higher-education institutions in the US with endowments of more than US$1 billion.
Broader public funding is likely necessary to fill this financing gap. The US government spends a mere US$3.16 per person on public media, most of which goes to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to support local public television and radio stations. Meanwhile, a country like Germany spends more than US$142 per capita on public media.
Some US states and local governments have already been providing additional funding. For example, New Jersey’s Civic Information Consortium funds 14 separate local news organizations; the New Mexico Local News Fund supports 16 journalists across the state; and a recent US$25 million budget appropriation in California will support 39 journalism fellows, with a “focus on underserved communities.”
Similarly, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, Wisconsin and Washington are all considering tax credits for local-media subscriptions and payrolls.
Other states are directing some of their public advertising budgets toward supporting local media outlets in underprivileged communities.
Other bold solutions have been considered, but have stalled. At the federal level, the Local Journalism Sustainability Act would have allocated US$1 billion for tax credits supporting local journalism, but it died along with the Build Back Better bill.
Similarly, California’s Journalism Preservation Act has been put on hold. If enacted, it would direct digital advertising giants to pay news outlets a “journalism usage fee” when they sell advertising alongside news content, and it would require publishers to invest 70 percent of those funds in preserving journalism jobs in California.
Such measures might prove indispensable. Local journalism plays a vital role in protecting democracy, but to protect both, more business innovation, philanthropic investment and public support for independent media are urgently needed.
Laura Tyson, a former chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers during the administration of former US president Bill Clinton, is a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, and a member of the Board of Advisers at Angeleno Group. Lenny Mendonca, senior partner emeritus at McKinsey & Co, is a former chief economic and business adviser to California Governor Gavin Newsom and chair of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS