Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Activism in Free Press

Activism in Free Press
The vital link between a healthy press and our republic
Getty Images

“Media and technology are essential to our democracy” is the first statement that appears on Free Press’ website, a suitable introduction to an organization dedicated to reshaping the media landscape. Founded in 2003, Free Press was established to empower people to have a voice in the powerful decisions that shape how media and technology operate in society. Over the years, the media industry has undergone dramatic shifts, with corporate consolidation swallowing up local TV stations, radio outlets, and newspapers. This has led to a decline in independent journalism, resulting in the loss of numerous jobs for reporters, editors, and producers across the country.

Due to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a piece of legislation that allows anyone to enter the communications business, it was up to Free Press to closely monitor decisions shaping the media landscape when people’s right to connect and communicate is in danger.


Vanessa Maria Graber, a director of journalism and media education, leads the News Voices project, which connects local communities and the newsrooms that serve them through public engagement, advocacy campaigns, and collaborative projects.

Graber was able to work with Free Press on issues related to net neutrality, broadband access, and campaigns surrounding the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Through the media justice movement, Free Press can focus on protecting free speech, press freedom, fighting hate and misinformation, and holding media and tech companies accountable. The media justice movement is based on the understanding of the intersectionalities between federal policy work and the influence of corporate media on journalism. It aims to challenge power structures and ensure the media reflects the needs of all communities.

With Graber, Free Press has worked on various projects, including Democracy Is.

They will be holding various series of briefings and training sessions for media professionals and communities to protect democracy. One of the most recent discussions focused on the recent elections and understanding how free and fair elections are supposed to work, as well as disinformation surrounding elections and its potential to undermine democracy.

Through educating the public and media professionals, Free Press emphasizes the crucial role media literacy plays in combating disinformation and gaining a better understanding of how technology affects our perception of content. Vulnerable communities are often the most targeted when it comes to disinformation. That’s why the educational work Free Press does can help people recognize what’s real and what’s not. One of their recent polls showed that Spanish speakers in the U.S. are even more likely to feel like they don’t have enough independent news sources to make informed decisions when it comes to voting.

According to Free Press’ analysis, daily Spanish speakers are more likely to receive news article links compared to other U.S adults.

It highlights why Free Press has been calling on social media platforms to take more action to prevent the spread of misinformation, particularly in languages such as Spanish.

They hold media institutions accountable by overseeing telecommunications in the United States and by collaborating with the FCC and FTC. They can monitor all policies and individuals who may potentially pose a risk to the public. Additionally, Free Press can shape regulations that are favorable to the public.

“ A very small number of people own the majority of media in this country and until that changes, we're still going to have a very unbalanced system where majority of people do not have power and access to equitable media, and that's why we have been for the last 20 years fighting for more access to media platforms and to create our media and for smaller groups of people who are not giant media corporations” Graber said.

Through research, advocacy, and activism, Free Press also hosts a media power collaborative that people can join to learn more about journalism policy and media justice issues.

One of their major wins was restoring funds to the New Jersey Civic Information Consortium, which Governor Murphy had proposed cutting to zero. With Free Press launching a campaign in New Jersey to advocate for the funds not to be cut and to be restored, they were able to secure their restoration for $2.5 million.

Graber is currently working on the future of a journalism team that is collaborating on a research project with a dozen newsrooms from across the country, which produce civic journalism, and is trying to understand how people are meeting the information needs of their communities. They will explore the types of innovations and engagement they have had or attempted to achieve.

This report will be published in the fall with the results of that research. In addition, the Free Press’ journalism team is working to pass legislation in states such as California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania to provide funding for local journalism projects, including those in New Jersey, through the Civic Information Bill.

Whether it’s privacy, surveillance, misinformation, or the future of local journalism, Free Press continues to fight for a media system that truly reflects and serves the people. Through activism, education, and policy work, they’re creating a space where everyone can have a voice in the media and in our democracy.

Nathaly Suquinagua is a bilingual multimedia journalist with a B.A. in Journalism and a minor in Dance from Temple University and a cohort member with the Fulcrum Fellowship.

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.

Please help the Fulcrum in its mission of nurturing the next generation of journalists by donating HERE!

Read More

Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage
Why Fox News’ settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is good news for all media outlets
Getty Images

Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage

Last week, the ultraconservative news outlet, NewsMax, reached a $73 million settlement with the voting machine company, Dominion, in essence, admitting that they lied in their reporting about the use of their voting machines to “rig” or distort the 2020 presidential election. Not exactly shocking news, since five years later, there is no credible evidence to suggest any malfeasance regarding the 2020 election. To viewers of conservative media, such as Fox News, this might have shaken a fully embraced conspiracy theory. Except it didn’t, because those viewers haven’t seen it.

Many people have a hard time understanding why Trump enjoys so much support, given his outrageous statements and damaging public policy pursuits. Part of the answer is due to Fox News’ apparent censoring of stories that might be deemed negative to Trump. During the past five years, I’ve tracked dozens of examples of news stories that cast Donald Trump in a negative light, including statements by Trump himself, which would make a rational person cringe. Yet, Fox News has methodically censored these stories, only conveying rosy news that draws its top ratings.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Flag / artificial intelligence / technology / congress / ai

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Liberty and the General Welfare in the Age of AI

If the means justify the ends, we’d still be operating under the Articles of Confederation. The Founders understood that the means—the governmental structure itself—must always serve the ends of liberty and prosperity. When the means no longer served those ends, they experimented with yet another design for their government—they did expect it to be the last.

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity. Both of those goals were top of mind for early Americans. They demanded the Bill of Rights to protect the former, and they identified the latter—namely, the general welfare—as the animating purpose for the government. Both of those goals are being challenged by constitutional doctrines that do not align with AI development or even undermine it. A full review of those doctrines could fill a book (and perhaps one day it will). For now, however, I’m just going to raise two.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of AI chat boxes.

An illustration of AI chat boxes.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

In Defense of ‘AI Mark’

Earlier this week, a member of the UK Parliament—Mark Sewards—released an AI tool (named “AI Mark”) to assist with constituent inquiries. The public response was rapid and rage-filled. Some people demanded that the member of Parliament (MP) forfeit part of his salary—he's doing less work, right? Others called for his resignation—they didn't vote for AI; they voted for him! Many more simply questioned his thinking—why on earth did he think outsourcing such sensitive tasks to AI would be greeted with applause?

He's not the only elected official under fire for AI use. The Prime Minister of Sweden, Ulf Kristersson, recently admitted to using AI to study various proposals before casting votes. Swedes, like the Brits, have bombarded Kristersson with howls of outrage.

Keep ReadingShow less
shallow focus photography of computer codes
Shahadat Rahman on Unsplash

When Rules Can Be Code, They Should Be!

Ninety years ago this month, the Federal Register Act was signed into law in a bid to shine a light on the rules driving President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal—using the best tools of the time to make government more transparent and accountable. But what began as a bold step toward clarity has since collapsed under its own weight: over 100,000 pages, a million rules, and a public lost in a regulatory haystack. Today, the Trump administration’s sweeping push to cut red tape—including using AI to hunt obsolete rules—raises a deeper challenge: how do we prevent bureaucracy from rebuilding itself?

What’s needed is a new approach: rewriting the rule book itself as machine-executable code that can be analyzed, implemented, or streamlined at scale. Businesses could simply download and execute the latest regulations on their systems, with no need for costly legal analysis and compliance work. Individuals could use apps or online tools to quickly figure out how rules affect them.

Keep ReadingShow less