Social media takes a lot of heat for spreading disinformation, but Francesca Tripodi thinks we should look more closely at another fixture of our browsers: search engines. On this episode of "Civic Genius" we learn more about how the same forces that shape our social media diets also drive the information we find when we search online, and how we can boost our own media literacy.
When local watchdogs go silent, towns lose more than headlines. They lose accountability, memory, and an important bastion of civic cohesion.
Every month, I pay $20 on autopay to support the Falls Church News-Press, my town's free, independent weekly newspaper in Virginia. I don't do it for the paper itself, which is still available all around town whether I pay or not. I do it because in a community of 15,000, that paper is a civic pillar. It keeps a record of who we are, it keeps watch on local government, and it gives neighbors a common source of facts. Without it, our town would be more divided, less accountable, and more easily manipulated by outside voices.
In September 2025, the Del Norte Triplicate shut down after nearly 146 years. Editor Roger Gitlin put it plainly: "The reason is simple: not enough revenue." Legal notices required under state law no longer had a home. School board meetings and zoning disputes went uncovered. With no independent record, the county's government now operates with less scrutiny.
The costs are measurable. Municipal borrowing costs increase by 5 to 11 basis points after newspaper closures: $650,000 per average bond issue. For a typical $50 million bond, taxpayers pay an additional $250,000 to $550,000 over its life. Municipal bonds are priced based on risk. Newspapers reduce that risk by providing information and oversight. When the newspaper closes, the risk rises—and so does the price cities pay to borrow money.
Business borrowers near closure face loan spreads about 30 basis points higher, amounting to approximately $1.2 million in additional interest on an average loan. Fewer independent outlets also mean weaker turnout and reduced civic participation.
Some communities have refused to let their guard dogs go hungry. In San Diego, reporters remade their newsroom into a nonprofit. Voice of San Diego now survives on memberships, reader donations, and foundation grants, exposing corruption and influencing city policy.
New Jersey created the Civic Information Consortium, seeded with state funds but run by universities and civic groups. The design is deliberate: treat local news like public infrastructure, but put it under independent oversight to guard against political interference.
In 2023, major foundations pledged $500 million through Press Forward to rebuild local journalism. And European countries go further. Norway has provided direct newspaper subsidies since 1965, spending NOK 303 million in 2006 to support 138 newspapers. Sweden operates press subsidies through an independent Media Subsidies Council. France, Denmark, Italy, and Austria maintain schemes including reduced VAT rates, postal subsidies, and direct grants. During COVID-19, Austria provided €35 million in pandemic-related press subsidies.
Digital editions reduce costs but don't solve the revenue crisis. While online news grew 17.2% from 2010 to 2011 as print declined, research shows local newspapers remain more important than Facebook for local politics. Studies link declining local coverage to reduced voter participation. Only 10% of eligible voters cast ballots in some recent local primaries. Digital platforms excel at speed, but newspapers provide "the informational backbone" of community knowledge and stronger civic attachment. Both formats need support to maintain professional local reporting.
Critics raise legitimate concerns. Selective subsidies can undermine editorial independence when politicians choose which outlets receive funding, as initially happened in Austria and Sweden. Taxpayer resistance is significant: polling shows 49% of Canadians think journalists "purposely mislead" people, and government funding creates "permanent conflict of interest." Economic critics argue subsidies risk "agency capture" and may end up "in publishers' pockets with no obvious return to society."
These concerns are real. The New Jersey model addresses them through independent oversight. European countries use transparent, formula-based criteria. San Diego's nonprofit model avoids government funding entirely. The challenge is designing support that strengthens independence rather than compromising it.
When independent local journalism dies, what's consumed is trust, transparency, and the shared facts that allow neighbors to govern themselves. The guard dogs are still here, but they are hungry. Feeding them is not charity. It is the price of keeping our communities accountable, our civic memory intact, our self-government vibrant.
Examples from Del Norte, San Diego, New Jersey, and Europe show both the risks and possible solutions. Whether through reader support, nonprofit models, public investment with independent oversight, or philanthropic funding, communities must act deliberately. The cost of inaction, measured in higher borrowing costs, reduced accountability, and diminished civic engagement, far exceeds the cost of sustaining the watchdogs we still have.
Edward R. Saltzberg, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Security and Sustainability Forum and author of The Stability Brief, and has been a local civic leader for 40 years.
As AI reshapes jobs and politics, America faces a choice: resist automation or embrace innovation. The path to prosperity lies in AI literacy and adaptability.
“They gave your job to AI. They picked profit over people. That’s not going to happen when I’m in office. We’re going to tax companies that automate away your livelihood. We’re going to halt excessive use of AI. We’re going to make sure the American Dream isn’t outsourced to AI labs. Anyone who isn’t with us, anyone who is telling you that AI is the future, is ignoring the here and now — they’re making a choice to trade your livelihood for the so-called future. That’s a trade I’ll never make. There’s no negotiating away the value of a good job and strong communities.”
Persuasive, right? It’s some version of the stump speech we’re likely to hear in the lead up to the midterm elections that are just around the corner--in fact, they’re less than a year away. It’s a message that will resonate with Americans who have bounced from one economic crisis to the next — wondering when, if ever, they’ll be able to earn a good wage, pay their rent, and buy groceries without counting pennies as they walk down each aisle.
It’s a message that’s also destined to leave Americans economically worse off in the long run.
Technology causes job displacement. It’s a tale as old as innovation. In the short run, this can lead to a spike in unemployment and, as a result, a demand for political action to ease economic insecurity. One tactic may be to stop the development and spread of the technology itself. The thinking goes that if today’s jobs are artificially protected from tomorrow’s technology, then more Americans can hang on to their current role and maintain some degree of stability.
Politically, such thinking might make sense — politicians are rewarded for thinking about the here and now under our current electoral system. Yet, economically, this approach lacks support. The surest way to help everyday folks achieve the American Dream in the Age of AI is not the wrap them and our economy in AI bubble wrap. That’s actually a recipe for economic calamity.
The states and nations that survive and thrive through the disruptions brought on by AI will be the ones that focus on economic resiliency, not economic entrenchment. This tactic involves three key strategies: AI literacy, AI adoption, and economic dynamism.
On AI literacy, beware the party that effectively encourages you to ignore AI or even actively avoid it. Fundamental knowledge of whether and how to use AI tools will become as basic as Outlook proficiency in a few years. In the same way that most folks no longer include “Word” and “Excel” as core competencies on their resume, employers will soon come to expect that applicants and employees have familiarity with AI tools. Policymakers should help you prepare for that world rather than try to dodge it. Any delayed introduction to AI will diminish the long-term competitiveness of U.S. workers. It’s no secret that ongoing exposure and education to new technology make it easier to pick up the next tool. The individuals who continually experiment with AI and learn its faults and strengths will have an easier time keeping up with the rapid advances in the field. On the other hand, when protectionist measures expire and workers with little AI training find themselves back on the market, they will have a much tougher time.
On AI adoption, beware the party that chastises companies for using AI and otherwise attempts to block certain professions from trialing new AI uses. There are many unproductive ways to use AI — uses that detract from a company’s bottom line, that hinder operational efficiencies, and that harm consumers. Critically, however, there are uses that will result in new products, new services, and, most importantly, new jobs. Discovery of both the good and the bad will not happen by accident. If we’re going to uncover the jobs of the future, then we need businesses today to act as AI laboratories.
Finally, on economic dynamism, beware the party that treats it as its mission to freeze our economy in amber by constructing barriers to entry for AI-forward firms. At these early stages of AI, it’s easy to spot bad apples — firms that come up with the latest “AI” play that’s actually a poorly disguised scam. This may be particularly likely in areas like education, mental health, and financial services. Short-term political thinking may lead candidates to urge whole bans on AI in certain industries. This may generate applause at a pep rally, but it’s also likely to quash entrepreneurial activity in those areas. Startups that could have developed the next great app that empowers more Americans in the classroom or supports them through hard times will pivot to other fields or simply not get off the ground. That’s not a dynamic economy; that’s an economy that rewards entrenched incumbents.
In sum, the future isn't a trade-off between livelihoods and technology. That's a false choice, born of short-term political thinking and economic anxiety. The real trade is between a nation that chooses to bury its head in the sand—and one that chooses to adapt and lead.
Instead of trying to halt the inevitable march of progress, our focus should be on preparing Americans for the future. That means championing AI literacy in our schools and workplaces, so that every citizen can become an active participant in this new economy. It means fostering AI adoption by giving businesses the freedom to experiment and discover the new products, services, and jobs that will drive our growth. And it means cultivating economic dynamism by removing the regulatory barriers that stifle innovation and protect powerful incumbents.
The true American Dream isn't about clinging to the past; it's about building a better future. The path to a strong, prosperous, and resilient nation in the age of AI isn’t through prohibition—it’s through preparation. Now’s the time to anticipate and refute those who want to score political points with short-term perspectives.
Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and author of the Appleseed AI substack.
Left to right: Abigail Higgins, Christina Sturdivant Sani, Maddie Poore, George Kevin Jordan, Martin Austermuhle
In 2018, WAMU 88.5 – Washington, D.C.’s NPR member station – saved beloved local publication DCist from certain death. WAMU’s funding and support kept DCist alive and enabled it to continue serving the community with the thoughtful journalism readers had come to love. Six years later, however, WAMU announced it would shut down DCist in favor of prioritizing audio-first content. DCist then joined the thousands of newspapers and news sites that have disappeared across the United States in the last 20 years.
Frustrated by decisions to axe newsrooms being made by suits in high offices, six former workers of DCist and WAMU decided to build their own, employee-run newsroom — and thus, The 51st was born.
To launch The 51st, Abigiail Higgins, president and senior editor, and her team asked the public for help raising enough money to get off the ground — and they got it. Within one month, the crew raised more than their $250,000 goal (thanks in part to a large donation in the 11th hour) and began publishing in October 2024. One year later, its editors are optimistic that they have built a sustainable publication, thanks in large part to the D.C. community.
In the year since its inception, the 51st has won the hearts of D.C. readers both online and offline. The outlet has over 3,000 paid subscribers (and about 4 times as many free subscribers) and just over 68,000 followers across X, Instagram, and BlueSky. Higgins said she owes this in part to DCist's reputation and reporting, which they relied on for some marketing, as well as the city’s residents' reputation for being very active in civic institutions.
“D.C. is a city of people who really care about things and who are really engaged and who are really paying attention to the news,” Higgins said. “Their jobs are often directly impacted by politics and by the news. So I think it's a really incredible city to try and launch something like this in.”
The team at The 51st also decided to see if they could bring on another local icon: beloved former WAMU reporter Martin Austermuhle. With limited funds, the 51st launched another crowdfunding campaign to raise enough money to hire Austermuhle full-time and maintain a salary for the paper’s Executive Editor, Christina Sturdivant Sani. In just over a month, supporters raised over $127,000 — more than enough to cover the costs for both.
Most of how this up-and-coming outlet has managed to stay in publication as a new venture during an uncertain era for news, however, is not simply by producing good journalism (which they do) and looking back to the legacy of DCist; The 51st has leaned on the community it serves for feedback, input and support since its inception, creating and maintaining initiatives to make D.C. residents stakeholders in their local paper.
“Journalism can sometimes be unidirectional, where journalists are doing more of the work, determining or deciding what makes a story or how a story should be told,” Higgins said. “We've always really wanted to make sure that our community is playing a direct role in answering those questions and sharing that story.”
Before they began publishing, The 51st’s founders showed up at local farmers’ markets and built what Higgins described as a “middle school science fair energy” setup—a tri-fold poster with a question for visitors about how the outlet could shape its coverage to serve them.
While some of the answers were not news to Higgins, she said she was surprised that so few people asked about crime, given the damage irresponsible coverage of the issue has caused in the past.
“I was a little worried that we would get a lot of feedback, that what people were worried about was crime,” Higgins said. “Local news has often [spurred] crime panics; there are plenty of examples of racist crime coverage.”
Instead, she said respondents wanted to hear more about the root causes of crime or similar topics such as community safety, the housing crisis, and opportunities to keep youth in the city occupied. Higgins said the staff appreciated the ability to hear these concerns in person because it allowed them to really connect with the people they would be writing for.
“We need much more complicated measurements for what kind of journalism resonates with people, and clicks only tell part of that story,” she said. “These direct conversations we're having with readers are such an important way to think in a much more nuanced way about what kind of coverage people want to see.”
One newer program by The 51st that aims to continue those conversations is Community Connectors, an initiative that brings D.C. residents onto its staff as ambassadors for crucial and underrepresented reader groups in the district, serving as embedded liaisons between the editors and the people. These Connectors are not trained journalists, though they do learn journalistic practice as they write pieces for the 51st about their assigned communities.
Dwayne Lawson-Brown is the 51st’s Community Connector assigned to D.C. Natives, residents who were born and raised in the district. Raised in the city’s Southeastern quadrant, Lawson-Brown joined the 51st four months ago when they hosted an edition of “Ask A D.C. Native Live,” a trivia event based on the running column by Sturdivant Sani, and was enamoured by the outlet’s mission.
“I fell in love with the idea that DC folks are covering DC news and having things be hyperlocal and very intentional in being connected to what is happening with and for DC,” they said. “So I asked, ‘How could I be involved?’”
Lawson-Brown said they feel that their status as a member of the community who has joined this team, rather than a journalist from outside the community, has helped them gain the trust of the community and potential interviewees.
“We're specifically meant to be friendly folks, in some cases popular opinion leaders, people that are already trusted in the community,” they said, “ and that opens the door. We get to be a bridge between the people living their lives and the news outlet covering and sharing the lives that are being lived.”
Higgins said part of the reason The 51st launched its Community Connectors program was to combat the rising distrust of journalism in the United States; the latest Gallup report found that only 28% of respondents said they trust the media “a fair amount” or “a great deal.” While local news is generally more trusted than national media, Higgins emphasized that they are not exempt from maintaining a good reputation in their community.
“Community Connectors are one way that we really want to acknowledge that local journalism is about relationships,” Higgins said, “and relationships take a lot to build, and you can't just expect because we've launched a local news organization that everybody is going to trust and support that local news organization.”
Higgins said these efforts have kept subscribers coming to The 51st, but those who give money are not paying to read; The 51st has no paywall. This has proven to her that the community is here to support The 51st as long as it keeps doing what it does.
“The people who are subscribing to us are subscribing to us just because they believe in what we're doing, and they believe that local news matters, and they believe in it enough to use their dollars in this incredibly difficult economy to support local journalism,” Higgins said. “We've really felt from day one that The 51st wasn't just about those of us who started it, but was really about the community in D.C. that showed up to allow us to do this.”
Unfortunately for the team at The 51st, building a newsroom was not the only challenge they faced in the outlet’s infancy. On the same day, they announced that their second fundraising goal had been met. The 51st began covering the Trump administration’s takeover of their city. Higgins said doing double duty — building a newsroom and covering unprecedented times — has been an immensely difficult task; she also said she has no regrets.
“Trying to cover this administration's impacts on this city is like drinking out of a fire hose,” she said. “But the necessity of having independent worker-run newsrooms that produce high-quality journalism is more vital than ever … it also means that we're more committed than ever.”
Lawson-Brown said they have learned a valuable lesson: the readers want to drive the news. And in this challenging time, they said, it is crucial for programs like theirs to exist.
“The biggest thing is that we are in this together,” they said. “The paper is in its infancy, at a time when free speech and democracy are being actively attacked …We're at a time when when media is being bought and so and I'm learning that the community has a vested interest in being part of the conversation and hopefully controlling the conversation around what is happening.”
Lawson-Brown also shared that they have seen other communities ask the 51st to teach them what they are doing to build similar initiatives of their own, which has made them even more proud to be part of the team.
“I felt a sense of pride that these folks are saying that they want to do what we're doing,” they said. “It shows that [the work] is being noticed. It shows that it does matter. And I think that's the most rewarding thing, above all, in being involved with the 51st.”
Similarly, Higgins’ message to those considering taking on the challenge of building a local outlet is that they absolutely should, no matter what it takes.
“Starting something like this is really overwhelming and is really daunting, but I think it's one of the most important things that we can be doing right now,” she said. “For folks who are feeling depressed about the state of the world or scared about the future of this country, I really think getting involved in or supporting or being a part of local news and community information-gathering more broadly is a really important weapon that we have in this fight.”
As for The 51st itself, neither Higgins nor Lawson-Brown says it’s going anywhere anytime soon. The support (financially and morally) from the community has made it possible for the outlet to continue publishing for a while, a thought they have cherished amid all the chaos in D.C. at the moment.
“The fact that we are in this position, a year in of publishing, is amazing,” Higgins said. “We're all still a little giddy, and we're all still delighted and a little overwhelmed that we're in the position for this to be a long-term prospect.”
Jennifer Nehrer is a senior at USC Annenberg.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
Monica Campbell
At a time when democracy feels fragile and newsrooms are shrinking, Monica Campbell has spent her career asking how journalism can still serve the public good. She is Director of the California Local News Fellowship at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former editor at The Washington Post and The World. Her work has focused on press freedom, disinformation, and the civic role of journalism. In this conversation, she reflects on the state of free press in the United States, what she learned reporting in Latin America, and what still gives her hope for the future of the profession.
You have worked in both international and U.S. journalism for decades. How would you describe the current state of press freedom in the United States?
Press freedom in the United States has always been tested. What we see now is a mix of political pressure and economic strain that makes newsrooms fragile. Yet at the same time there is a strong commitment among journalists and editors to defend the core values of a free press.
There are real threats, from lawsuits to attempts to limit access to institutions like the Pentagon or to redefine how the White House press corps operates. But there is also renewed energy to protect our rights. That determination is encouraging. It shows that, even under pressure, journalists in this country still understand the importance of their mission.
Many countries once looked to the United States as a model of free speech. Do you think that image still holds true?
We need to look globally for inspiration. The United States has been one important example, but there are others now. What matters is how journalists respond when their freedom is challenged. That is the real test, and we are seeing it today.
Many reporters refuse to accept new restrictions or codes of conduct designed to control access to government institutions. They continue to cover protests and political movements across the country. That resilience is part of the DNA of American journalism.
Some major media outlets have yielded to political pressure. But I see smaller local newsrooms that, despite limited resources, keep reporting daily on what happens in their neighborhoods. That persistence is courageous and deserves attention.
How should journalism schools prepare new reporters to work in this polarized environment?
We need to start by telling the truth about journalism itself. It has never been easy or comfortable. There has never been a time when it was simple or well paid. There have always been attempts to silence or intimidate journalists.
So journalism schools must teach students to know their rights, understand the history of press freedom in the United States, and be prepared to act if they are challenged. They also need to understand the business side of journalism. Running a newsroom is not something most people learn in school, but it is vital to the survival of our industry. And now, technology is another pillar of training. Reporters have to understand new tools, especially artificial intelligence, and know how to use them responsibly.
What role do you think artificial intelligence will play in journalism?
It is essential to understand how AI works and how it can be used carefully in newsrooms. It should not happen to us, it should happen with us. Journalists need to know what AI can and cannot do, and find ways to use it to strengthen reporting.
In several newsrooms where I have worked, resources are already being dedicated to studying how AI can help journalism. At Berkeley, the goal is to learn about it, not fear it. My position is simple. We must study AI, understand its power, and make sure journalists remain the ones making editorial decisions.
The term “fake news” has changed how people see the media. How has it affected public trust?
It has been devastating. Every day new platforms appear that spread misinformation. That is now a permanent feature of our information landscape.
Still, there are independent creators, podcasters, and local initiatives producing very good, reliable content. That is important to recognize. Not everyone outside the traditional press is harmful. But the challenge for professional journalism is to rebuild trust.
For too long, news organizations have told people what they should know instead of listening to what they want and need to know. We have ignored parts of society and missed stories that matter to people’s lives. That has to change.
In California, I see local newsrooms hosting public events and community meetings to understand what people care about. That kind of listening is what will help us reconnect with the public and repair trust.
You have worked at The Washington Post, The World, and reported from Mexico, Cuba, and Haiti. Which experiences most shaped your view of journalism?
My years in Mexico changed me completely. There, being a journalist can cost you your life. When I was the country representative for the Committee to Protect Journalists, I documented cases of reporters who were threatened, attacked, or killed. That experience made me realize that journalism is an act of civic courage, not just a job.
It also made me appreciate the privilege of working in the United States, where most of the time you can report without fearing for your safety. But even here that sense of security is becoming more fragile. I have spoken with reporters who worry about consequences for covering protests or controversial topics. We are not immune.
At The Washington Post I saw another side of journalism, the power of large institutions. One story can change a life, influence legislation, or reach the president. Behind every article are layers of editing, fact-checking, and debate. It is a reminder that serious journalism is built on care and precision, even if the public does not always see that.
Do you still see journalism as the fourth estate?
Yes, but a more fragile one. Journalism can still hold power accountable, but only if it has resources and public trust. Without those two elements, influence fades.
The fourth estate exists only if citizens believe in it. When the public stops trusting us, we lose our ability to challenge authority. Protecting journalism is not just a media issue, it is a democratic one.
Many local newsrooms have closed or downsized. Is there still a path to rebuild strong local journalism in the U.S.?
It is difficult, but I think it is possible. I see energy and imagination in many small outlets that are trying to survive through collaboration and community support.
The economics are harsh. Media ownership is concentrated in fewer hands, and even the large companies are struggling. But many citizens still understand the value of reliable, fact-based information and are willing to support it. That gives me hope.
Depending only on philanthropy or temporary grants is not sustainable. We need public investment in journalism. Other countries have models that treat information as a public good. The BBC is one example, imperfect but instructive.
In the United States, public funding for news has declined sharply. That makes local and state initiatives even more important. In California, our fellowship is funded by the state government, which shows that some lawmakers still understand that good information is essential to democracy.
You work closely with new journalists through the fellowship. What role do you think this new generation will play in the profession?
They are vital. This generation is more diverse, brave, and socially aware. They enter journalism because they care about truth and community. That gives me enormous hope.
Many of them also come from other careers, which enriches the field. At Berkeley, we have students from science, law, and healthcare. They bring new perspectives that journalism badly needs. Their sense of purpose and openness to change inspire me every day.
What gives you hope for the future of journalism?
There is real public hunger for good, verified, local information. People want to know what is happening in their schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods. Many small newsrooms are meeting that demand.
I see reporters reinventing themselves and finding creative ways to connect with their audiences. Despite the disinformation, polarization, and economic pressures, the need for journalism is not disappearing.
What keeps me going is seeing new people enter the field every year. Students, mid-career professionals, people from all backgrounds still choose journalism. They believe it matters. That belief is what gives me energy and optimism.
Profile
Monica Campbell is Director of the California Local News Fellowship at the Graduate School of Journalism, University of California, Berkeley. She previously worked as an editor on The Washington Post’s audio team and spent nearly a decade as a senior editor and correspondent for The World, covering Latin America. Earlier in her career she served as the Committee to Protect Journalists’ representative in Mexico, documenting threats and attacks against reporters.
Her work earned a national Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Equity and Inclusion, and she was a finalist for the Mirror Award, which honors excellence in media reporting. A former Nieman Fellow at Harvard University, she is fluent in English and Spanish and collaborates with organizations that support Latino journalists in the United States. From Berkeley she continues to teach, mentor, and advocate for a resilient and inclusive future for journalism.
Alex Segura is a bilingual, multiple-platform journalist based in Southern California.
