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.
Patrick Mahomes #15 of the Kansas City Chiefs celebrates during the first half of the AFC Divisional playoff game against the Houston Texans at GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium on January 18, 2025 in Kansas City, Missouri.
The NFL playoffs are an exciting time for football fans to watch the chase for the Super Bowl. It was a uniquely American obsession that has increasingly captured the attention of live sports fans worldwide.
It’s also prime time for live sports piracy, and American lawmakers must enact measures to protect these live broadcasts.
Professional and amateur sports are among the most popular live-streamed content—watched by 61% of viewers who subscribe to streaming services. Yet a study of 6,000 sports fans across 10 countries also found that 51% of the group pirated live sports monthly, despite 89% having at least one streaming subscription.
A 2023 Harvard Business Review study found that 35% of NFL fans surveyed watch football games on pirated streaming services.
Digital piracy costs streaming services companies approximately $30B in annual revenue, which is expected to rise to $113B by 2027. Live sports streaming piracy alone generates an estimated $28B in annual losses.
Many consumers may not sympathize with these streaming companies, but the impact goes much deeper than the boardrooms and stockholders of these companies. Athletic staff and trainers, creatives who produce advertisements, support staff, and thousands of other workers lose when their work is pirated. Piracy costs jobs and threatens the future of creative content, especially when a creator determines their unique work won’t be protected by copyright.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Many countries have taken regulatory action to protect content creators and streaming services. Over fifty countries allow their courts to block websites hosting pirated content through Internet Service Providers (ISPs), effectively shutting them down, including Canada, Italy, and the U.K.
Last year, India strengthened its anti-piracy protections further by criminalizing film pirating and adding significant financial penalties. The European Union recently proposed strengthening its Digital Services Act to fight digital piracy of sporting events and other live entertainment.
The U.S. must adopt a more aggressive approach to identifying, stopping, and prosecuting digital piracy, primarily since so much pirated content is produced in the U.S. by American content creators.
The current Digital Millennium Copyright Act empowers streaming services and copyright owners to send notices to websites identifying pirated content and demanding its removal. Still, the law is powerless against foreign-owned domains. Since so much digital piracy is driven by foreign actors, more must be done to block pirated content overseas.
In 2011, Congress considered building on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by introducing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which would have allowed U.S. Courts to block websites as over 50 other countries allow. However, critics of the legislation were concerned that SOPA infringed on First Amendment rights and would lead to legal trouble for websites like Wikipedia, Google, and YouTube. Critics have also expressed concern about not impinging on the established fair use doctrine that allows copyrighted material to be used under limited circumstances, further chilling free speech.
The blatant theft of publishers', athletes', and creators' works shouldn’t be an issue of free speech, but ensuring legal measures are aimed at websites and streaming services focused on pirating content should strike an appropriate free speech balance. Congress must reconsider legislation allowing pirated content blocking while establishing a process that respects the rights of domains, including dominant providers like YouTube and Google.
The Motion Picture Association (MPA) recently outlined a process that a federal judge would supervise. Copyright holders could request a court order to block specific websites. ISPs and the public would have the opportunity to respond if they disagree. The copyright holder would be responsible for demonstrating that the site primarily engages in piracy. This process is expected to last months rather than years. If a block order is issued, ISPs would decide how best to block consumer access to the site.
This approach would allow streaming companies, publishers, and content creators to protect their content from piracy, preserving job creation and sustaining income while ensuring consumers continue receiving and paying for the content they’ve come to expect and enjoy.
Max Eisendrath is the CEO of Redflag AI.
Newspaper headline cuttings.
A few days ago, Donald Trump was inaugurated. In his second term, just as in his first, he’ll likely spark passionate disagreements about news media: what is “fake news” and what isn’t, which media sources should be trusted and which should be doubted.
We know we have a media distrust problem. Recently it hit an all-time low: the percentage of Americans with "not very much" trust in the media has risen from 27% in 2020 to 33% in 2024.
We think most would agree we want high trust in news. However, this growing distrust isn’t only about news quality; it’s also a manifestation of our toxic political divides. Many are, of course, angry at news outlets they associate with the “other side.” But many also have grievances against outlets largely aligned with their worldview when they think they’re not doing enough to support the “good guys” or fight the “bad guys.” Our stressful divides lead to us being upset about many things—and, unsurprisingly, this applies to our views of “the media.”
Amidst this rising distrust, it’s worth asking: Are we sometimes too angry at “the media”? We know many people have overly pessimistic views of their political opponents and that this “undue hate” helps drive polarization. Could excessive anger at “the media” also be contributing to our divides? If so, is there value in thinking about “the media” in more nuanced ways?
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
We can examine this question while acknowledging that news outlets, intentionally or not, do contribute to polarization. News outlets too often seem to cater to their audiences’ existing views which helps people stay in information bubbles. They tend to focus too much on divisive narratives and divisive leaders—and those choices influence our views of what politics can and should be. There are many criticisms we can and should make of news outlets; we must encourage them to do better. But we should also consider whether there’s value in tempering that criticism with empathy and understanding.
Some anger is based on a perception that “the media” is a powerful institution pulling the strings of society. But as media scholar Elizaveta Friesem points out: “Media is just us; it’s just people communicating with each other.”
Journalists are people, like us. They’re not omniscient arbiters of truth (even as their approaches, at times, make it seem like they think they are). Like us, they’re dealing with our confusing and stressful divides as well as a fractured and competitive information landscape. Journalists have conscious and unconscious biases, as we all do. And combatting our own biases is difficult—especially when we have such divergent political narratives.
For example, the New York Times is accused by many of having an extensive liberal bias—but some on the left accuse them of “enabling right-wing spin”, or even of being pro-Trump. Regardless of what you think of the New York Times, the point is that no matter the approach a news outlet takes, it’ll inevitably anger many people who have different politics. Acknowledging that reality can help us better understand the stress that our divides place on media creators.
Some of our frustration with the news is due to people simply not understanding their political opponents. When we’re in conflict, we find it hard to see our adversaries’ point of view. This difficulty is what leads to so many people accusing the “other side” of being brainwashed, of being in a cult, and of creating or believing propaganda. As our narratives diverge more and more, our opponents’ beliefs seem increasingly alien, inexplicable—even downright scary.
A grievance from conservative audiences is that many in the mainstream news have interpreted Trump’s statements in biased and overly pessimistic ways. Many conservatives see that as part of a malicious smear campaign. But there are other explanations for such things besides purposeful deception. Simply put, it’s just easy for people to arrive at very different stances, especially for issues associated with our divides. People’s views about Trump’s statements can vary depending on how they interpret his words and intentions, or how they connect his words to what he’s said in the past on the same issue. This dynamic happens on both sides of every conflict.
Of course, some people do promote information they know is false or misleading. We know our divides can make people think the ends justify the means. But often bias is a much simpler explanation than purposeful deception. We aren’t good at distinguishing genuine belief from deception—and this means we’ll often make mistakes about our political opponents.
Some talk nostalgically about the “golden age” of journalism in the 20th century as if it was a time of high-quality reporting and strong consensus. But we should recognize our rosy perceptions of that time may be largely an illusion, influenced by there being only a handful of powerful news outlets at that time. Some argue our current media fragmentation represents a return to a pre-golden-age environment where a multitude of competing narratives were found across many small newspapers and pamphlets.
No matter how we got here, today’s media is a reflection of our society and the people in it. To reduce political toxicity, we must criticize news outlets and demand that they do better. But if we temper our criticisms with empathy and understanding, we’ll be more persuasive—more likely to be heard and listened to. Maybe someday, we’ll find our way to a new age of trusted news.
Civil Rights Ldr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. speaking into mike after being released fr. prison for leading boycott.
Sixty-two years after Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King’s pen touches paper in a Birmingham jail cell, I contemplate the walls that still divide us. Walls constructed in concrete to enclose Alabama jails, but in Silicon Valley, designed code, algorithms, and newsfeeds. King's legacy and prophetic words from that jail cell pierce our digital age with renewed urgency.
The words of that infamous letter burned with holy discontent – not just anger at injustice, but a more profound spiritual yearning for a beloved community. Witnessing our social fabric fray in digital spaces, I, too, feel that same holy discontent in my spirit. King wrote to white clergymen who called his methods "unwise and untimely." When I scroll through my social media feeds, I see modern versions of King's "white moderate" – those who prefer the absence of tension to the presence of truth. These are the people who click "like" on posts about racial harmony while scrolling past videos of police brutality. They share MLK quotes about dreams while sleeping through our contemporary nightmares.
Then and now, the church often stands guilty of what King called "shallow understanding from people of goodwill." In 1963, it was the clergy who counseled patience while Black bodies bore the weight of segregation. Too many religious leaders preach digital decorum, yet our social platforms burn with hatred, conspiracy, and tribal warfare. Replacing Bull Connor's dogs with content moderators, lunch counter segregation with filtered feeds, and water hoses with mute buttons and 180-day account suspension (ask me how I know).
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
James Baldwin's searing question comes to mind – "Do I really want to be integrated into a burning house?" – takes on new meaning in our digital age. The virtual public square has become its kind of burning house, where truth smolders beneath the ashes of misinformation and AI-generated falsehoods. As a theologian and pastor, I ask: What does seeking a beloved community in digital spaces designed for division mean? How do we practice digital integration when our very platforms are built on the foundation of segregated realities?
The present composition of the digital square reveals this as truth. When conspiracy theories about election fraud spread unchecked through church WhatsApp groups, when Sunday school Facebook pages become breeding grounds for political polarization, and when Twitter threads about Scripture devolve into tribal warfare, we witness a troubling reality. A reality where we have made peace with our divisions.
The letter from Birmingham jail prefaces how our digital wilderness mirrors the spiritual wilderness he described. King expressed grave disappointment in the church's failure to live to its authentic call. Contemporary religious institutions often function more like digital thermometers rather than thermostats regulating or changing our polarized culture. Yet there is hope.
Just as King saw the potential for redemption in the church of his day, I see possibilities for redemption. King called on "creative extremism" – not the extremism of hatred or division, but the extreme love that refuses to accept the comfortable constraints of our digital cages. This creative extremism might involve religious leaders intentionally building digital and physical spaces for genuine dialogue across differences. It might also involve spiritual disciples employing their social media presence as a ministry of reconciliation rather than a platform for sacrilegious and non-democratic proclamations. Also, it necessitates each of us to become digital architects of a beloved community, deliberately curating spaces where truth and grace can meet.
Dr. King, I believe, wrote his letter not just to critique but to call forth. Believing in the possibility of transformation – not just of laws and systems, but of hearts and minds. In our digital age, we need that same prophetic imagination. The walls of our digital cells are high, but they are not impenetrable. I wonder if we will dare to break them down, brick by binary brick, and build something better in their place.
Build a Software Development Team to Running Your Business Growth. Software Engineers on the project discuss a database design workflow and technical issues in a tech business office.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly disrupting America’s job market. Within the next decade, positions such as administrative assistants, cashiers, postal clerks, and data entry workers could be fully automated. Although the World Economic Forum expects a net increase of 78 million jobs, significant policy efforts will be required to support millions of displaced workers. The Trump administration should craft a comprehensive plan to tackle AI-driven job losses and ensure a fair transition for all.
As AI is expected to reshape nearly 40% of workers’ skills over the next five years, investing in workforce development is crucial. To be proactive, the administration should establish partnerships to provide subsidized retraining programs in high-demand fields like cybersecurity, healthcare, and renewable energy. Providing tax incentives for companies that implement in-house reskilling initiatives could further accelerate this transition.
To ensure inclusivity, community technology centers and libraries equipped with online courses could be deployed in rural and underserved areas, helping workers across the country adapt to the evolving economy.
AI disproportionately affects regions reliant on clerical and manufacturing jobs, exacerbating local economic hardships. Establishing “economic diversification zones” in these communities—offering tax breaks, grants, and infrastructure investments—would attract growth-oriented industries such as advanced manufacturing, green energy, and technology startups, fostering broader economic resilience.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Rural areas, however, face a bigger challenge: they are among the least served by technology infrastructure, including high-speed internet. This digital divide limits access to the tools and resources necessary to participate in emerging AI-driven industries, putting these communities at risk of being left further behind. Many of these areas form the backbone of the Trump administration’s voter base, making their inclusion in the AI economy both an economic imperative and a political necessity. Without targeted investments to bridge this gap, rural regions may miss out on the opportunities AI could bring, compounding existing economic disparities.
Displaced workers often face unemployment and financial instability. Expanding benefits to include income-based retraining and extending coverage duration would offer essential relief. Decoupling healthcare from employment could also reduce stress and uncertainty. Meanwhile, portable benefits—allowing retirement and healthcare coverage to follow workers across jobs—would mitigate career-transition risks and bolster economic resilience.
Employers in emerging industries often struggle to fill vacancies despite high unemployment in declining sectors. The Trump administration must facilitate partnerships between educational institutions, labor unions, and employers to align training programs with industry needs. Apprenticeships and internships in fields like AI and machine learning could provide workers with on-the-job experience.
Micro-credentialing programs—short, specialized training modules—would allow displaced workers to transition into new roles without requiring full degrees, ensuring a faster and more efficient shift to growing industries.
Barriers such as inadequate childcare, eldercare, and inflexible work arrangements disproportionately affect women and low-income families. Subsidizing childcare and eldercare could enable more individuals to pursue retraining and employment. Encouraging remote work and flexible scheduling would expand opportunities for workers in rural areas and those with caregiving responsibilities.
The integration of AI and automation into the workforce represents both a challenge and an opportunity. By investing in retraining programs, economic diversification, and robust social safety nets, the Trump administration could empower workers to navigate this transformative period.
However, given the administration's policy direction, which deprioritizes investments in social safety nets, workforce retraining, and regional economic development, it is unlikely that these comprehensive changes will be pursued. Without a significant shift in priorities, many of the most vulnerable workers will face the full brunt of automation-driven job losses without sufficient support. This stark reality underscores the urgent need for a forward-looking strategy to address these issues head-on. Ironically, this burden will fall most heavily on the administration's strongest source of support—rural communities and blue-collar workers—further deepening the challenges they face.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.
S4 E13. Broken News
