Predictions for the Future of Media

One day after The Washington Post announced it would not endorse a presidential candidate in this year’s election or in the future, its billionaire owner remains silent as the newspaper’s staff are in turmoil. – CNN

WHAT’S GOING ON

One time, when I worked in legacy media, a wealthy tech bro came in as CEO. He said he wanted our niche publications to focus on the positive aspects of our beats. He wanted people to feel good when they came to our sites. To him, this meant avoiding speaking truth to power or pointing out social justice issues within our beats. This strategy, he thought, would attract advertisers. Home Depot would not want to buy an ad next to an exposé on sexism in the construction industry. The Top 10 Best General Contractors? Sure.

But the ability to produce thoughtful, unique pieces—including those that check power—is arguably the only thing legacy media has going for it. These stories can take time, money, and lawyers, three things independent journalists often don’t have. These stories are what set larger outlets apart. Quality pieces give them credibility. Credibility builds trust, and trust is what legacy media deals in. It brings in paying subscribers, who, in turn, lure advertisers.

This is something The Atlantic CEO Nicholas Thompson recognized. He focused on quality. He supported in-depth reporting on tough topics, like immigration and 9/11, as a vital part of The Atlantic’s story slate. He announced in March 2024 that the publication has over 1 million paying subscribers and is profitable. It’s even increasing its print magazine frequency from 10 to 12 issues per year.

WTF does this have to do with WaPo and the LA Times? Well, if the power of any journalism media brand lies in its credibility, you might find that billionaire owners being able to strike stories hurts credibility. That it’s tough to trust a publication that promises to hold those in power accountable, then doesn’t. Especially when it matters most.

In this case, the stories WaPo and LAT axed were presidential endorsements in a race where the choice is between democracy and fascism. From a business standpoint alone, the lack of an endorsement is insane. The only reason to block it is to hedge your bets in case The Orange becomes president. This is also insane, considering the two possible results of blocking an endorsement are:

1. Harris becomes president. But you’ve lost lost credibility/trust. Lost subscribers. Advertisers leave, as their potential audience has dwindled.
2. The Orange becomes president. Fascists do not believe in a free press. The government destroys your business.

The “fun,” don’t-piss-off-those-in-power strategy does not rebuild a journalistic media empire. In the words of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton, “If you stand for nothing, what’ll you fall for?” Burr loses the presidency because he equivocates. Legacy brands die for the same reason.

For the record, The Atlantic endorsed Harris.

Laurene Powell Jobs, majority owner of The Atlantic, is apparently not afraid of The Orange. Interesting that the lady billionaire media owner is the only one who had the guts to stand up to him.

The spineless billionaires have other businesses they bet will profit from government favor, essentially throwing legacy media under the bus for the promise of much bigger money. Because, you know, they need it.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Two more Los Angeles Times editorial board members resign amid turmoil over blocked Harris endorsement – CNN

Media seems to be in an in-between time where two things are happening:

1. Legacy media’s credibility is faltering.

2. Independent journalists—those who have their own websites/social media/newsletters—are no longer seen as lacking credibility without the backing of legacy institutions.

This means smart, determined journalists can make their own successful news outlets. Though those who have, like Jessica Yellin, or who are just starting to, like Taylor Lorenz, got a boost in credibility—and audience, I’d imagine—from former work at legacy media outlets. I wonder how much longer that boost will be necessary.

And for funsies, here are some predictions. (Of course, the fun of predictions is there are no consequences if you’re wrong.)

• More journalists dedicated to their craft/a specific beat will become independent creators.
• They will not lose any credibility doing this.
• Their challenge will be building enough of a paying audience to sustain journalism as a job rather than as a hobby.
• They will replace niche legacy outlets if those outlets stand for nothing. (i.e. if they can no longer authoritatively critique the industries they cover.)
• Puff is forgettable. Evergreen is everywhere. And AI will do both pretty well.
• The biggest challenge for any media brand, legacy or independent, is finding a paying audience. That won’t change.
• Credibility will always be the main currency any journalism brand deals in, individual or otherwise.

What do you think? What’d I miss? What did I get wrong?

xo,

Media Junkie Me

P.S. Here’s how McSweeney’s covered The Endorsement Scandal. Humor is the greatest truth teller.

THE STARFLEET GAZETTE WILL NOT BE ENDORSING A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FEDERATION OF PLANETS