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

The U.S. Pentagon.

Buried in the 2027 NDAA, Section 224 could fundamentally reshape U.S.-Israel defense ties. Is Congress creating an irreversible military partnership?

Getty Images, Westend61

America Should Stay Single

As we wait to see what comes of ceasefire negotiations between the United States and Iran, the House just released its 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Buried within it lies Section 224, titled the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” a provision representing what would be a radical departure from how we work with even our strongest allies, turning America’s relationship with a close collaborator into a permanent military-industrial integration. The U.S. has worked with NATO partners on co-production and shared supply chains in the past, but never like this. Many are calling it a merger. We should all be calling it off.

Section 224 could inextricably link the fate of our country’s defense to another’s. The Secretary of Defense would be directed to designate an executive agent to fuse ventures with Israel so significantly that it would touch almost every area of defense tech: AI, autonomous systems, energy, cyber, biotech, and beyond. It also proposes “network” and “data fusion,” which means, as the director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute warned, “the U.S. military’s data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.America First may soon sound more like a sarcastic punchline than a platform.

Keep ReadingShow less
AI Could Save Thousands—So Why Is Healthcare Still Hitting the Brakes?

Discover how generative AI in healthcare could reduce misdiagnoses, improve chronic disease management, and save hundreds of thousands of lives—if policymakers accelerate adoption instead of waiting for risk-free perfection.

Getty Images / Pakorn Supajitsoontorn

AI Could Save Thousands—So Why Is Healthcare Still Hitting the Brakes?

Imagine that the only way Americans traveled was on foot or on horseback. And assume that 100,000 people died each year because they couldn’t reach a hospital in time or firefighters arrived too late.

Suddenly, they learned that thanks to a technological breakthrough, cars and trucks will become widely available within three years.

Keep ReadingShow less
This 3D rendered image shows a central AI processing chip sitting atop a glowing blue printed circuit board.

Can AI profit-sharing help workers? Examining public wealth funds, AI taxes, economic transition policies, and the future of work.

Jason marz / Getty Images

There’s No Easy Path Through the AI Transition

“Trending” policy ideas tend to garner attention for all the wrong reasons: they seem like silver bullet solutions that will save us from taking on much harder reforms. Proposals to share profits from leading AI companies with the public are the latest example. It’s the rare policy scheme that seems to have united President Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, and CEOs at the leading AI labs. While the proposals for AI profit sharing vary in their precise details, a quick review of their likely outcomes should quickly deflate the popular excitement that has formed in response to calls for new taxes, public wealth funds, and the like. It’s important to reveal such limitations so that the AI policy discourse can move on to mechanisms more likely to address the real concerns of the American people.

In our first hypothetical world, the two leading AI labs—Anthropic and OpenAI—give away 3% of their equity. That’s not nothing! Based on current figures, such a contribution could kickstart a public wealth fund of about $55 billion. Let’s then imagine that fund earns 10% a year (a big “if” but let’s run with it). Per The Economist, this AI would reach a staggering $140 billion within ten years. How much would that benefit Americans? If annual payouts were 4% — what the publication reports is a proper amount to keep the fund going and growing — Americans would have an extra $20 in their pocket.

Keep ReadingShow less
For Imre Huss, Fixing Democracy Starts With Talking to a Stranger
a couple of people sitting at a table with cups of coffee

For Imre Huss, Fixing Democracy Starts With Talking to a Stranger

The Democracy Architects Council, presented by The Bridge Alliance Education Fund and Civics Unplugged, offers a paid, one-year fellowship for eight fellows ages 18 to 28, each selected for their work across a distinct sector of democratic life.

The youngest member of the Democracy Architects Council is building AI-powered civic tech, but he says the real work of democracy still happens face to face.

Keep ReadingShow less