Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The rise and fall of fact-based journalism

Road sign with options for Fact and Opinion
Maria Vonotna/Getty Images

Radwell is the author of “ American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing Our Nation ” and serves on the Business Council at Business for America. This is the fifth entry in a 10-part series on the American schism in 2024.

The late 19th century in our country marked the height of yellow journalism, a style of newspaper reporting that prioritized sensationalism over facts. Presenting little in the way of legitimately well-researched news, papers of that era focused on eye-catching headlines to drive sales. Stories of the day were rife with scandal-mongering, crime, sex and violence. Even “legitimate” news stories were full of outrageous exaggerations. Historians argue to this day about the role of yellow journalism in pushing the United States into the Spanish American War.

In the early part of the 20th century, however, the tide seemed to shift. Some newspaper owners, responding to consumer thirst for more dependable information, realized that accurate investigative reporting could stimulate good business. Moreover, some like Joseph Pulitzer believed newspapers were public institutions with a duty to improve society. After purchasing the New York World in 1883, Pulitzer started replacing the many sensational stories with real journalistic coverage. By the time of his death in 1911, the World was a widely respected publication.


In the first decade of the new century, newly formed press associations began championing higher education. In 1908, the same year as the founding of the National Press Club, the University of Missouri opened the first school dedicated to journalism, followed by Columbia University in 1912 (funded by a $2 million grant from Pulitzer). With other schools adding journalism to their curriculum, the new field of study was defined as a process of collecting, processing and disseminating information in the public interest.

Now sanctioned by universities, the journalism industry could teach acceptable behavior and establish credentials, and also promulgate high ethical norms such as accuracy, balance, impartiality and truthfulness, independent of any commercial or political interests. It was nothing less than the birth of a profession.

Over the next decade, the field further distinguished itself with a robust sense of social responsibility towards the general public, good governance and democracy. At its foundation were two principle underpinnings; the first was designating a relentless focus on the pursuit of truth as the center of the value hierarchy. Second, the revolutionary idea of erecting a “Chinese wall” between the owner and the editor of a newspaper. News would no longer be shaped to suit the partisan interests of press owners, but rather would be determined by trained nonpartisan professionals, using judgment and skills honed in journalism schools.

So what happened that led us from the days of Walter Cronkite to the present era in which the autonomy of professional journalism seems to be vanishing faster than the Amazon rainforest. Here are the three developments of the recent decades that proved pivotal:

  • The regulatory framework was rescinded. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan’s FCC repealed the “fairness doctrine,” which required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints (some argued that as cable news spread, the doctrine seemed to be rendered obsolete).
  • News got replaced by (sensational) entertainment. In the face of the rising costs of accurate investigative news gathering, Roger Ailes pioneered a new business model at the Fox News Channel. This “winning” model, in which costly journalism is replaced by inexpensive pundit blowhards, caught on and became highly attractive to all media owners. The alternative path for many other television and radio stations was the outright elimination of news.
  • The great training camp for fresh “up and coming” journalists withered away. The growth of the internet proved to be a death sentence for the money-maker in the print business — “the classifieds,” which kept afloat thousands of local newspapers across the United States. The unintended consequence: The vital training ground where young journalists newly out of school could learn the profession receded as town and regional newspapers closed. In fact, the AP reports that the nation has lost two-thirds of its newspaper journalists in the last 20 years.

Today what is left is a media landscape where the search for eyeballs (or clicks) is the raison d’être, which routinely trumps accuracy, data or any form of verified information. The subscription model has become scarce and in the maelstrom of advertising that remains, most Americans have given up the pursuit of truth. The alternative is to create and maintain your own unsullied version of the truth in your chosen bubble.


Read More

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less