Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Philanthropy is helping eliminate news deserts

News desert
Hitoshi Nishimura/Getty Images

Boren is executive director of the Institute for Media and Public Trust at California State University, Fresno.

When I watch TV coverage of a news conference at the White House, I’m reminded of how reporting resources are disproportionately allocated in today’s news environment. The journalists at the White House are essentially all giving us the same story, while city council and school board meetings across America are not being covered because of cutbacks in local newsrooms.

How much better for our democracy would it be if we could say we had “too many” reporters covering local news? Instead, we have communities dubbed “news deserts,” meaning they don’t have news sites covering public agencies and other essential information that citizens need to make decisions about their local democratic institutions.

Fortunately, there are news leaders working on this issue, and right now philanthropy has become a major funding source for hiring local reporters. Let’s be clear: Philanthropy isn’t going to replace the thousands of journalists who lost their jobs because of the broken news business model. But it will help local newsrooms cover their communities.


I recently returned from Raleigh, N.C., where I attended a crucial board meeting of Journalism Funding Partners, a nonprofit group that is trying to help save local journalism by raising money to pay the salaries of reporters. JFP is one of several such organizations working on the challenge. If we don’t, misinformation and disinformation are only going to increase, with an unchallenged social media pushing these untruths along.

These organizations have made excellent progress, but they must do much more to keep journalists writing about their local communities. I’m thrilled to volunteer on the JFP board, and I believe the many other similar nonprofits trying to fund local journalism are making a difference.

It was about three years ago when a few of us came together to see if we could help in a small way reverse the fortunes of the news industry by capitalizing on the idea of using philanthropy to fund local journalists. JFP’s founding board members were veteran journalists, who intimately knew the impact that exceptional journalism can have in communities.

The idea quickly took fire, and JFP began matching donors with local newsrooms across the nation. JFP became so successful that, since 2020, we have helped secure more than $3 million in grants to support local journalism. This includes funding 15 climate reporters. The stories these reporters are covering would not have been told without this funding.

We deeply believe that local journalism is crucial to our democracy because well-informed citizens make smart decisions about their communities. Conversely, when city councils, school boards and planning commissions hold meetings without reporters telling the public what happened, bad decisions often are made. Studies have shown that politicians spend money more recklessly and government is less efficient in communities where there aren't journalistic watchdogs.

Look at JFP's work so far. We are helping fund reporters just about everywhere you look – in Fresno, Sacramento, Modesto, Miami, Fort Worth, as well as in communities in Idaho, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, just to offer a partial list. These are new reporters who would not be there without JFP.

At our July meeting in Raleigh, our 11-member board began planning our vision for the next five years of JFP. These are some of the best strategic thinkers in the industry. One goal is to put $10 million annually into local journalism. To be clear, this money goes directly to hire reporters, and not for newspaper operations.

I'm confident that JFP will continue to make a major impact in local journalism, and local communities will be better informed because of our work to secure newsroom funding. We raise funds from foundations, major donors and individuals. We also act as the "fiscal sponsor" to allow nonprofits to direct funding to newsrooms using JFP as the intermediary. This allows donors to make tax-deductible contributions. We operate under strict IRS guidelines.

The money goes to JFP and then to newsrooms, and funders do not have any say on what gets covered, other than the grants are to be used for climate reporters, in that particular example. Newsroom editors make coverage decisions exclusively.

Our board has extensive experience in journalism, education, law, nonprofits and philanthropy. Over the past year, we have hired a full-time executive director, veteran journalist Rusty Coats, and that has allowed us to make great strides as an organization. We are now prepared for the next phase of our work.

Philanthropy isn’t the only answer, but it will help fund local journalism until newsrooms come up with a better model to hire and support local journalists.

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