Newsrooms are shrinking, hedge funds are buying up local papers and clickbait is shaping more and more what you know about the world. What the heck is happening to the news business — and what does this spell for the future of democracy? Journalism professors Jay Rosen and Nikki Usher say the internet isn’t all to blame: Journalists, they argue, need to get more creative about who they reach, what they cover and how they fund their work.
“How we spend our days is how we spend our lives.” — Annie Dillard
There was a time, not so long ago, when holiday cards were the means by which acquaintances updated us on their lives. Often featuring family photos with everyone dressed up, or perhaps casual with a seaside or mountainside backdrop, it was understood this was a “best shot” curated to feature everybody happily together.
Those holiday cards were eagerly opened, shared and even saved. Occasionally they might broach boundaries of good taste, perhaps featuring a photo of the sender’s new Lexus shining brightly as the Christmas star, or containing more pages than an IKEA assembly pack and listing the fifth grader’s achievements. But most of the time these cards conveyed the annual family update and welcome holiday cheer.
Now social media spreads such cheer throughout the year — holiday cards that do not stop. In the past, we were included on others’ card lists; now we are their “followers,” and they ours. Everyone spends lots of time exhibiting, checking likes, sending “stories,” updating statuses, etc. In other words, time alone with our phones.
Yet, in this constant barrage of “socialization” many feel isolated, even apathetic.
Playing to an audience is often fodder for personal discontent, despite large entourages. Besides, do we really care what our college roommate had for dinner last night when we haven’t seen her for 20 years? There is no real human connection through social media. We are not experiencing life first-hand, but rather in a fast-changing virtual reality.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
It is a great irony of our age that, although we are more connected, we are less so. Look around at an airport, a waiting room, a grocery line. Most people are staring at their phones as if they’re magic mirrors, engaging only with the device in their hand.
And of course there’s this: What are you not doing while fixating on your screen?
Still, what’s the harm?
Plenty, according to social scientists, including increased depression and escalating suicide rates. Young people, whose social network is mostly electronic and whose validation depends upon it, are often taunted and preyed upon by those hiding behind online anonymity.
Teens’ unsophisticated willingness to buy into the glossy accounts of others’ fabulous lives causes increasingly low self-esteem, producing overriding dissatisfaction with their own lives. They compare their relatively tame — normal — lives with those of the more beautiful, more interesting, more sociable, which to their inexperienced eyes looks to be basically everyone else.
Increasing evidence of toxicity and damage is emerging, especially for our children. Johns Hopkins, Yale and others, have published articles on the detrimental effects of introducing electronic media too early, and the surgeon general has called for a warning label on social media platforms.
The surprising thing is that this is surprising. Cause and effect, and comparable to the one-child policy instituted in China in 1979 that resulted in too many baby boys (males, culturally preferred, females aborted.) Years later: not enough girls to marry the surplus of boys. Predictable. Facebook was launched in 2004, opening the door to social platforms, and we are just now starting to realize its detrimental effects?
In the great sweep of social media, illusion reigns with its inherent falseness, from the seemingly innocuous act of simple selection — not posting unflattering photos — to photo manipulation and digital Botox. Yet, have you ever, even once, heard anyone say, “Everyone loves her because she is so perfect”? It is never perfection we connect with: It is humanness.
Thanks to increasing access to this lightning-fast, but tinny, media, we now have young adults who would more likely leave their grandmother at the mall than their cell phone. Phones feel like their connection to the world. But are they? Listening to Grandma’s stories is likely a better, and certainly more rewarding, connection.
Life isn’t curated updates, not just “our story” playing out, but the stories we share, experiencing this time and this place together.
Rarely have we faced anything that so permeates the psyches of our lives, particularly those of the most vulnerable. Now, with brilliant AI breaking over the horizon, we tend to forget what is important. We may be able to find all the answers, but do we even know the questions?
“Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?” — Mary Oliver
Curate it and post it? Or live it?
Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."
Kristina Becvar and David L. Nevins, co-publishers of The Fulcrum, announced recently that effective Jan. 1, Hugo Balta, The Fulcrum’s director of solutions journalism and DEI initiatives, will serve as executive editor. What follows is a message from Balta about his new responsibility.
In the aftermath of this year’s contentious presidential election, it is imperative to heal a democracy fractured by polarization, emphasizing the importance of dialogue, accountability, and inclusive and transparent governance.
Journalism plays a pivotal role in upholding democratic values and ensuring the health of democratic systems. As our country faces complex challenges, the significance of a free and independent press becomes increasingly evident.
The Fulcrum fosters public discourse by providing a platform for diverse voices and opinions. The national news outlet amplifies marginalized perspectives through news articles, opinion pieces and investigative reports, fostering an inclusive dialogue vital for a thriving democracy.
As The Fulcrum’s executive editor, I’m grateful for the opportunity to take a collaborative approach to paving the path forward to a more informed and engaged citizenry, fortifying the foundations of democracy.
While many newsrooms extensively cover politics, there is a lack of focus on democracy itself — the electoral and governmental systems that shape our nation. So, how can we meet this demand, especially after a divisive election year? The answer lies in embracing solutions journalism.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Earlier, I wrote about the concept of solutions journalism, which aims to foster an environment that tackles the challenges faced by our democracy by promoting civic engagement, equity and constructive discourse. By shifting the focus from merely reporting on problems to highlighting responses (to those problems), thought leaders and journalists can contribute to a more informed and empowered populace.
People across the country feel frustrated and disillusioned with U.S. politics and the journalism that reports on it. Coverage in mainstream media often focuses on extremes, poll numbers, accusations and sensational statements. My charge is to captain The Fulcrum in providing people with what they truly desire from news outlets: information that helps them comprehend and navigate the complexities of the world around them.
Many people's emotions are running high right now. Elections often bring out a wide range of feelings, whether pride and optimism for those who are pleased with the results or disappointment and frustration from those who aren’t. After a long and grueling election season, we need to connect with and not avoid one another.
In times of high conflict, it's common for people to split into two opposing groups and view each other negatively. This can lead to generalizations and name-calling, which often dehumanize the other side and can escalate tensions. A more productive approach is to seek a deeper understanding of the complex factors that contribute to different perspectives. Doing so can help reduce polarization and foster more constructive dialogue.
As a solutions journalism practitioner, I leverage Complicating the Narratives, which helps journalists find new ways to report on controversial issues and polarizing politics. It draws on the experience of experts in conflict mediation. When reporters use these strategies, they listen better, ask more revealing questions, effectively introduce opposing viewpoints and embrace nuance in their reports. They learn to tell more accurate, richer and fuller stories.
Journalists are trained to view their role as chroniclers of history rather than participants in it. This “on the sidelines” approach is rooted in the belief that involvement could compromise their objectivity, potentially positioning them as active participants rather than impartial observers of the situations they are reporting on.
Objectivity proposes that there are two sides to every story. However, there are many perspectives, and the ones most often left out are from marginalized communities whose representation is absent from newsrooms. That is why I subscribe to transparency in the pursuit of truth.
Acknowledging my biases, I surround myself with people who do not share the same experiences, backgrounds and ideologies. We ensure fair and accurate coverage by “getting on the playing field” and engaging in discourse and debate about story coverage, focus, those who tell the stories and those who are heard.
Journalists are tasked with assisting the public in engaging in self-governance in a responsible and informed manner. This responsibility underscores the importance of a free and independent press, recognized as vital to democracy and enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The founders understood that the success of the American republic's democratic experiment depended on the unrestricted exchange of information and ideas.
While the road to recovery may be challenging, a collective commitment to understanding and cooperation can foster a more resilient and unified democracy.
As The Fulcrum’s executive editor, I am equal to the task of highlighting how journalism contributes to strengthening democracy and its functions and challenges in an ever-evolving media landscape. This function is essential for an informed citizenry, as it allows the public to make educated decisions and engage meaningfully in civic life.
Ultimately, a democracy's strength lies in its ability to adapt, listen and grow in the face of adversity.
As co-publishers of The Fulcrum, we are proud to announce that, effective Jan. 1, Hugo Balta, The Fulcrum’s director of solutions journalism and DEI initiatives, will serve as executive editor.
Hugo is an award-winning, 30-year multimedia journalism veteran with multiple market and platform experience, including leadership positions in NBC, Telemundo, ABC, CBS, and PBS, among other storied news networks. A nationally recognized diversity in journalism advocate, he is the recipient of the 2024 Cecilia Vaisman Award from Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications. Hugo is the only person to serve twice as president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. Hugo and his family live in Chicago.
He is currently the Publisher of the Latino News Network. LNN’s mission is to provide greater visibility and voice to the Hispanic, Latino community, amplify the work of others in doing the same, mentor and provide young journalists with real work experiences, and apply the principles of solutions journalism in producing stories focused on the social determinants of health, and democracy.
Hugo is also an adjunct professor at Columbia College Chicago, teaching journalism courses. He previously worked as executive editor at the Chicago Reporter, editor at WBBM News Radio, and news director at WTTW Chicago.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
We’ve grown significantly in 2024 and, under Hugo’s leadership, we are confident that our growth will continue as we expand into new areas. We deliver more than 1.4 million web impressions monthly and roughly 380,000 page views per month through our daily newsletter, social media platforms, and numerous other national content-sharing relationships. In addition, in the first eight months of this year, our writings were picked up 3,549 times by local newspapers around the country, which added to our reach considerably.
The Fulcrum is now accredited by Apple News, MSN News, Smart News and the Latino News Network. They pick up our content daily, and we are working to expand our relationship with them and other national platforms in 2025 to engage more citizens on how our evolving democracy can better meet the needs of all the people. We do so by sharing many perspectives to build a pro-democracy constituency of millions of Americans by making it easier to find and act on local and national civic engagement opportunities.
In 2024, we strengthened our working relationship with theMedill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, where young journalists regularly provided reporting for The Fulcrum We are also extremely proud of our working relationship with The OpEd Project, which offers The Fulcrum the opportunity to elevate the ideas and knowledge of underrepresented expert voices to accelerate solutions to the biggest problems facing our nation.
We’d like to give a special thank you to David Meyers, our current executive editor, who has been instrumental in the success of The Fulcrum. David’s vast experience after two decades at CQ Roll Call, a leading publisher of political news and information, was instrumental in guiding The Fulcrum team to the success we are now experiencing. David will be starting a new job in January with OpenSecrets as director of communications and marketing.
Despite our successes in 2024, we will not rest on our laurels. 2025 allows us to solidify further our position as a leading outlet for news and opinion so insiders and outsiders to politics are informed, meet, talk and act to repair our democracy and make it work in their everyday lives. Our dedication to a solutions journalism model will continue as we explore what is dividing us on the issues, what information can be trusted, what is oversimplified about the issues, and the nuances and complexities of the many problems facing our nation.
Please contact Hugo at hugo@thefulcrum.us to submit your op-ed proposal, suggest news stories and news or ask questions.
Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund. Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
This is the second entry in “Big Tech and Democracy,” a series designed to assist American citizens in understanding the impact technology is having — and will have — on our democracy. The series explores the benefits and risks that lie ahead and offers possible solutions.
Industrial liberty — once a cornerstone of American antitrust policy — has faded into obscurity in the shadow of Big Tech’s overwhelming dominance. In short, industrial liberty refers to your ability to use and benefit from your skills, your knowledge and your passion. It manifests as entrepreneurs and small-business owners, through patents and innovations, and as everyday folks finding good work every day. This erosion of this specific sort of liberty not only undermines the principles of competition but also stifles the aspirational spirit that has for so long distinguished the American public.
By concentrating power and leveraging their dominance to crush competition, companies like Amazon, Google and Meta suppress industrial liberty, extinguishing the incentive for new entrants to challenge the status quo. The result? An economy that serves entrenched monopolies instead of fostering opportunity.
Historically, the public interest standard set forth in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act was intertwined with industrial liberty. Drafters of the FTC Act wanted to make sure the agency prioritized enforcement actions that had wide-reaching ramifications and that, once resolved, would further industrial liberty. As figures like Justice Louis Brandeis emphasized, this broader policy approach was not just about preventing excessive prices or abusive practices; it was about empowering individuals — producers, workers and consumers alike — to thrive on a level economic playing field. Industrial liberty ensured that individuals could apply their talents and ambitions without being stymied by monopolistic giants. Yet today, the focus of antitrust enforcement has veered away from this principle, favoring superficial metrics and toothless regulatory action that allow Big Tech to dominate unimpeded.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
This shift is exemplified in the Federal Trade Commission’s diminishing adherence to its statutory mandate to act only in cases that serve a “specific and substantial” public interest. As Brandeis asserted, this standard requires more than avoiding private disputes; it demands a clear and measurable benefit to the public. Unfortunately, modern antitrust enforcement often appears blind to this mandate, pursuing cases that fail to directly confront Big Tech’s stranglehold while draining resources on marginal players. When they do seek out Big Tech, enforcers have commonly relied on questionable legal theories with low odds of success. This combination of strategies has left Americans in an undesirable position.
Consider the FTC’s recent complaint against a small generative AI developer accused of enabling deceptive product reviews. The case lacked any evidence of actual harm, let alone a substantial public interest rationale. Meanwhile, tech behemoths use their dominance to undermine competition in emerging markets like artificial intelligence. Instead of targeting these systemic threats, the FTC’s actions often discourage small-scale innovation — precisely the opposite of what industrial liberty aims to protect.
Big Tech’s behavior exemplifies the need for a renewed commitment to industrial liberty. These companies don’t just compete; they engulf entire industries, leveraging their ecosystems to deter rivals. The ease with which you find yourself buying products on Amazon, searching on Google or scrolling on Meta's platforms are all indicative of markets being saturated by a handful of major players. This market ecosystem not only limits consumer choice but oftentimes also discourages potential competitors from entering the market, fearing insurmountable barriers.
Restoring industrial liberty requires regulatory courage. Antitrust enforcement must shift its focus back to creating space for new competitors, especially in emerging industries like AI and renewable energy. By applying the public interest standard rigorously and targeting enforcement against the most egregious anti-competitive behaviors, regulators can foster a climate of innovation and opportunity.
Congress, too, has a role to play. The lawmakers who championed antitrust legislation in the early 20th century recognized that economic concentration posed a threat not just to markets but to democracy itself. Their vision of industrial liberty as a pillar of American life must guide modern legislative efforts. Proposals to curb Big Tech’s market power, such as limiting acquisitions of nascent competitors or imposing stricter interoperability requirements, align with this tradition.
The erosion of industrial liberty is not merely an economic issue; it is a democratic one. A society that tolerates monopolistic dominance is one where individual initiative and creativity are subordinated to corporate power. Reviving the principles of industrial liberty would not only enhance economic dynamism but also reaffirm the democratic values that underpin American antitrust law.
Realization of those ends, however, does not require revolutionary means. We don't need to bankrupt Big Tech but merely reorient it around the values these companies claim as their own. It should not be forgotten that many of these companies have greatly increased our collective capacity to learn, to explore and to connect. They directly employ thousands and have positive economic impacts on many more. And, in many cases, they have used their successes to benefit their surrounding communities. The issue is that we can and should expect Big Tech to do all these things at an even greater scale. The exceptional things should be the norm.
The FTC, Congress and the courts must embrace this challenge. By restoring industrial liberty as the guiding principle of antitrust enforcement, they can dismantle the barriers that Big Tech erects and pave the way for a new generation of entrepreneurs. The stakes are clear: Either we reclaim industrial liberty as a cornerstone of our economy, or we allow Big Tech to stifle the entrepreneurial spirit that defines the American dream.
Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.
S4 E13. Broken News
