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

Government Cyber Security Breach

An urgent look at the risks of unregulated artificial intelligence—from job loss and environmental strain to national security threats—and the growing political battle to regulate AI in the United States.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

AI Has Put Humanity on the Ballot

AI may not be the only existential threat out there, but it is coming for us the fastest. When I started law school in 2022, AI could barely handle basic math, but by graduation, it could pass the bar exam. Instead of taking the bar myself, I rolled immediately into a Master of Laws in Global Business Law at Columbia, where I took classes like Regulation of the Digital Economy and Applied AI in Legal Practice. By the end of the program, managing partners were comparing using AI to working with a team of associates; the CEO of Anthropic is now warning that it will be more capable than everyone in less than two years.

AI is dangerous in ways we are just beginning to see. Data centers that power AI require vast amounts of water to keep the servers cool, but two-thirds are in places already facing high water stress, with researchers estimating that water needs could grow from 60 billion liters in 2022 to as high as 275 billion liters by 2028. By then, data centers’ share of U.S. electricity consumption could nearly triple.

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less
Sketch collage image of businessman it specialist coding programming app protection security website web isolated on drawing background.

Amazon’s court loss over Just Walk Out highlights a deeper issue: employers are increasingly collecting workers’ biometric data without meaningful consent. Explore the growing conflict between workplace surveillance, privacy rights, and outdated U.S. laws.

Getty Images, Deagreez

The Quiet Rise of Employee Surveillance

Amazon’s loss in court over its attempt to shield the source code behind its Just Walk Out technology is a small win for shoppers, but the bigger story is how employers are quietly collecting biometric data from their own workers.

From factories to Fortune 500 companies, employers are demanding fingerprints, palmprints, retinal scans, facial scans, or even voice prints. These biometric technologies are eroding the boundary between workplace oversight and employee autonomy, often without consent or meaningful regulation.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a woman wearing black, modern spectacles Smart glasses and reality concept with futuristic screen

Apple’s upcoming AI-powered wearables highlight growing privacy risks as the right to record police faces increasing threats. The death of Alex Pretti raises urgent questions about surveillance, civil liberties, and accountability in the digital age.

Getty Images, aislan13

AI Wearables and the Rising Risk of Recording Police

Last month, Apple announced the development of three wearable smart devices, all equipped with built-in cameras. The company has its sights set on 2027 for the release of their new smart glasses, AI pendant, and AirPods with built-in camera, all of which will be AI-functional for users. As the market for wearable products offering smart-recording capabilities expands, so does the risk that comes with how users choose to use the technology.

In Minneapolis in January, Alex Pretti was killed after an encounter with federal agents while filming them with his phone. He was not a suspect in a crime. He was not interfering, but was doing what millions of Americans now instinctively do when they see state power in motion: witnessing.

Keep ReadingShow less