Balta is director of solutions journalism and DEI initiatives for The Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is publisher of the Latino News Network and a trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
The 2024 presidential election poses a unique set of challenges and opportunities for journalists tasked with covering it. Today's audiences expect more from news media than just the traditional “who is leading in the polls” reporting and problem-focused coverage. They are calling for a shift towards highlighting responses that address community challenges.
People across the country are feeling frustrated and disillusioned with U.S. politics and the journalism that reports on it. While coverage often focuses on extremes, poll numbers, accusations, and sensational statements, research shows that this approach falls short of meeting the public's needs. What people truly desire is news that helps them comprehend and navigate the complexities of the world around them.
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 during an election year? The answer lies in embracing solutions journalism.
The concept of solutions journalism 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), journalists can contribute to a more informed and empowered citizenry.
Earlier this year, I was a guest speaker at the "Putting the Public First in Political Coverage" webinar organized by the Journalism Courses program at the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas.
"The usual focus on winners and losers leaves us asking, ‘What about the people?’" Camila Llorente, the online course associate with the Knight Center, wrote in her description of the program. "More and more journalists and scholars believe that it’s time for a change, a move towards a more inclusive journalism that puts communities first."
"There IS an alternative to the traditional horse-race election coverage with its focus on polls and public perception. One that builds public trust, reduces polarization, and helps communities solve problems," said Jaisal Noor, Democracy Initiative manager at the Solutions Journalism Network. Noor proposes that a solutions journalism approach "works toward building trust, strengthening democracy, and providing voters with meaningful information — while still holding politicians to account."
Amid the whirlwind of political journalism, it is common to become engrossed in the "horse race" aspect — the polls, forecasts, and political spectacles that grab the spotlight. Yet, at the core of our democracy lie fundamental issues such as protecting voting rights and guaranteeing equitable access to the democratic system. Journalists are tasked with not only highlighting instances where civil liberties are under threat but also showcasing individuals and organizations that are actively working towards solutions to these challenges and elucidating the processes driving change.
As part of the Solutions Journalism Network’s fall 2023 seminar series on covering democracy, a number of leading journalists were asked to address the challenges and opportunities in stepping away from the horse race and dedicating more resources to covering democracy. “ Elevating Democracy Reporting: A Guide to Journalists ” offered tips on everything from the need to understand the intricacies of election administration to humanizing coverage and examining progress as well as problems.
It is essential that people who will be affected by a policy change be heard. “It really frustrates me when I hear these elite political journalists in places like New York and Washington say, ‘Oh, well, this or that law is not going to have any impact,’” Ari Berman, national voting rights correspondent for Mother Jones, said. “Well, how do they know? Have they interviewed people that have waited for 10 hours to vote? Have they interviewed people that can’t get an ID or have problems with an ID for some reason or another? Have they interviewed people that have been purged from the rolls? Have they interviewed people who have had their polling places shut? Have they interviewed people who can only get to the polls on the weekends because they work during the week? I mean, there are so many things that go into whether or not someone could or could not be able to vote.”
Another person advised including marginalized communities in coverage. Natalia Contreras, a reporter for Votebeat Texas, recommended delving into the experience of voters who have disabilities or don’t speak English. “If we know that we have a large multi-language community … do we know whether our counties are translating instructions into other languages?” she asked. “What is the law about that? Maybe we need to bring that to the forefront if that hasn’t been the case.”
In the United States, a rich history of inaccessibility and general distrust between communities of color and governmental systems has led to exclusive representation and participation within democratic processes.
Both the Latino News Network and The Fulcrum are focused on covering what is most important to our democracy — not the accusations, innuendos, and misinformation that all too often form the politics of our nation.
In my new role as director of solutions journalism & DEI initiatives at The Fulcrum, I will be committed to actively listening and building trust with the diverse communities we serve so we can provide relevant, accurate, nonpartisan, and in-depth coverage year-round that civically informs and motivates underrepresented and underserved residents.
The Fulcrum’s newsroom sees these communities as more than just our audience; they are our collaborators. Community insight and feedback continually shape our work.
Collaboration is integral to the health of news and the health of democracy.
A deep look at how "All in the Family" remains a striking mirror of American politics, class tensions, and cultural manipulation—proving its relevance decades later.
All in This American Family
There are a few shows that have aged as eerily well as All in the Family.
It’s not just that it’s still funny and has the feel not of a sit-com, but of unpretentious, working-class theatre. It’s that, decades later, it remains one of the clearest windows into the American psyche. Archie Bunker’s living room has been, as it were, a small stage on which the country has been working through the same contradictions, anxieties, and unresolved traumas that still shape our politics today. The manipulation of the working class, the pitting of neighbor against neighbor, the scapegoating of the vulnerable, the quiet cruelties baked into everyday life—all of it is still here with us. We like to reassure ourselves that we’ve progressed since the early 1970s, but watching the show now forces an unsettling recognition: The structural forces that shaped Archie’s world have barely budged. The same tactics of distraction and division deployed by elites back then are still deployed now, except more efficiently, more sleekly.
Archie himself is the perfect vessel for this continuity. He is bigoted, blustery, reactive, but he is also wounded, anxious, and constantly misled by forces above and beyond him. Norman Lear created Archie not as a monster to be hated (Lear’s genius was to make Archie lovable despite his loathsome stands), but as a man trapped by the political economy of his era: A union worker who feels his country slipping away, yet cannot see the hands that are actually moving it. His anger leaks sideways, onto immigrants, women, “hippies,” and anyone with less power than he has. The real villains—the wealthy, the connected, the manufacturers of grievance—remain safely and comfortably offscreen. That’s part of the show’s key insight: It reveals how elites thrive by making sure working people turn their frustrations against each other rather than upward.
Edith, often dismissed as naive or scatterbrained, functions as the show’s quiet moral center. Her compassion exposes the emotional void in Archie’s worldview and, in doing so, highlights the costs of the divisions that powerful interests cultivate. Meanwhile, Mike the “Meathead” represents a generation trying to break free from those divisions but often trapped in its own loud self-righteousness. Their clashes are not just family arguments but collisions between competing visions of America’s future. And those visions, tellingly, have yet to resolve themselves.
The political context of the show only sharpens its relevance. Premiering in 1971, All in the Family emerged during the Nixon years, when the “Silent Majority” strategy was weaponizing racial resentment, cultural panic, and working-class anxiety to cement power. Archie was a fictional embodiment of the very demographic Nixon sought to mobilize and manipulate. The show exposed, often bluntly, how economic insecurity was being rerouted into cultural hostility. Watching the show today, it’s impossible to miss how closely that logic mirrors the present, from right-wing media ecosystems to politicians who openly rely on stoking grievances rather than addressing root causes.
What makes the show unsettling today is that its satire feels less like a relic and more like a mirror. The demagogic impulses it spotlighted have simply found new platforms. The working-class anger it dramatized has been harvested by political operatives who, like their 1970s predecessors, depend on division to maintain power. The very cultural debates that fueled Archie’s tirades — about immigration, gender roles, race, and national identity—are still being used as tools to distract from wealth concentration and political manipulation.
If anything, the divisions are sharper now because the mechanisms of manipulation are more sophisticated, for much has been learned by The Machine. The same emotional raw material Lear mined for comedy is now algorithmically optimized for outrage. The same social fractures that played out around Archie’s kitchen table now play out on a scale he couldn’t have imagined. But the underlying dynamics haven’t changed at all.
That is why All in the Family feels so contemporary. The country Lear dissected never healed or meaningfully evolved: It simply changed wardrobe. The tensions, prejudices, and insecurities remain, not because individuals failed to grow but because the economic and political forces that thrive on division have only become more entrenched. Until we confront the political economy that kept Archie and Michael locked in an endless loop of circular bickering, the show will remain painfully relevant for another fifty years.
Ahmed Bouzid is the co-founder of The True Representation Movement.