Reading the findings of the report, two conclusions became apparent. First, these providers left their employers seeking independence, but then quickly rebuilt a new dependence on tech companies that might not be aligned with their goals and values. (Not all indie info providers started out in newsrooms, but they are all facing the same issues of dependence). Second, they have been tackling similar business challenges in isolation from one another, when these problems would be much more effectively solved if they joined forces.

The internet is in a period of flux for publishers. AI-generated instant answers at the top of search results mean that referrals to news websites are plummeting. Social media itself, crucial for reaching audiences, has fractured in the wake of new ownership and political headwinds. Every journalist going out on their own must rely on platforms to host, publish, and share their work — but choosing which to trust can feel like a minefield.

A Spectrum of Creator Independence

Every platform exists on a spectrum of creator independence. On one side of it, centralized services offer the promise of an easy turnkey solution. Services like Substack and Beehiiv are vertically integrated: journalist publishing workflows,  subscriber relationships, and revenue all flow through their parent company’s decisions. Beehiiv defaults to disabling open distribution channels like RSS, limiting a publication’s reach. Substack has of late prioritized “follows” over subscriptions, but only the latter can be exported by a publication if it wants to move platforms. These decisions benefit vendors over the publications and communities they serve. In some cases, there is an existing community for creators to tap into, which may constrain their platform choices; in others, creators need to bring their own audience, who then also may be locked in.

On the other side of the independence spectrum, open source platforms like Ghost and WordPress champion publisher choice. A decade ago, choosing open source meant accepting a substandard user experience, but modern platforms require no such compromises. Ghost has made hundreds of millions of dollars for publications, and WordPress powers 47% of the web. Each has its own first-class, fully-managed subscription (Ghost Pro in particular is worth taking a look at), but publishers have a choice: if you aren’t satisfied with their business model or decisions, you can easily choose another vendor and take your content and relationships with you).

Social Media’s Unequal Playing Field

The same dynamics exist for social media platforms themselves. At one end of the independence spectrum sit the traditional sites. X, formerly Twitter, has prioritized far-right content and suppressed external links, a problem now shared by TikTok. (Organizations like NPR have, quite reasonably, quit X completely.) Instagram is well-loved but doesn’t translate into real subscriptions or revenue; “link in bio” is not a sustainable strategy. Facebook has long charged for access to a publisher’s own audience.

But at the other end of the spectrum sit open source social media platforms that are significantly more promising for indie journalists. Bluesky and Mastodon have smaller user numbers overall but have more engaged user bases. Bluesky in particular routinely eclipses other networks in importance at newsrooms I’ve seen. They don’t suppress links, and users there are more likely to read journalism and pay for it.

The Case for Collaboration

Journalists shouldn’t need to have a technical background to go independent, but they do need access to technical expertise, and to begin to build their own. They also need to be able to learn from the experiences of their peers. That means building an accessible network of experts and stronger community structures for mutual support.

The same goes for other business-side functions. Indie info providers are each solving the same problems from scratch: ad sales, legal review, health insurance, accounting, taxes. Some of these can be tackled through peer learning, but there’s much to be gained by establishing more formal structures. In particular, creator cooperatives offering shared back-office functions, technical expertise, and legal resources would address these problems directly.

One interviewee put their challenges starkly: “Writing for a wealthy group of people is the only way at this point, as far as I can tell, to run a media business.” This is where collaboration, more access to experts, and more value-aligned platforms and networks can help bridge the gap. Co-operatives reduce overhead so the revenue threshold is lower; open platforms don’t suppress a provider’s work, allowing them to reach more people; and more engaged networks of communities are more likely to pay and share.

The Path Forward

There is precedent for this: the Colorado News Collaborative, for example, facilitates editorial collaboration across its home state. The Freelancers Union provides advocacy, education, and benefits to independent workers who would otherwise have to go it alone. In contrast, when Beehiiv offers health insurance stipends and Substack offers legal support, they’re filling real needs — but tying essential worker protections to platform choice recreates the institutional dependence these creators left newsrooms to escape.

Independence that depends on a platform’s continued goodwill isn’t independence at all. The individuals in this report already know that instinctively. They need the tools, the structures, and the funding to act on it.

Ben Werdmuller is Senior Director of Technology at ProPublica. He sits on the boards of A New Social and Tiny News Collective, and writes about pro-social technology at werd.io. Guest essays reflect the views of their authors, not CNTI. We welcome perspectives from across the field. If you’re interested in contributing, reach out at info@cnti.org.

The post What Independence Really Means for Indie Journalists appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

In India, that playbook lands differently. With 886 million internet users, a media industry worth over 29 billion dollars, and more daily newspapers than almost any country on earth, India looks like fertile ground for reader-funded journalism. But out of those 886 million users, roughly 1.5 million pay for any form of digital news. That is less than 0.2 percent.

This is not a failure of journalism. It is a consequence of a system built, over decades, around a very different set of assumptions about who pays and why. Understanding those assumptions is not just useful for India. It is a window into a problem that many journalism markets are quietly heading toward, regardless of where they are starting from.

_{Sources: FICCI-EY 2024, EY Media Report 2023, CASI/Barkha Dutt analysis, Reporters Without Borders 2024}

The System That Built Itself Around Advertising

India’s news industry was never designed for reader revenue. For most of the post-independence era, newspaper subscription prices were kept deliberately low, sometimes below the cost of production, to maximise circulation and therefore advertising rates. The logic was straightforward: reach as many readers as possible, then sell that reach to advertisers. The reader was never the customer. The reader was the product.

That model worked, in a fashion, for decades. But it created a structural dependency that is now deeply embedded. Today, most Indian news organisations generate close to 90 percent of their revenue from advertising. Corporate advertisers provide the bulk of it. Government advertising provides a significant share on top of that. According to an analysis presented at the Center for Advanced Study of India, the Indian government spent close to one billion dollars on media advertising across print, television and digital platforms in just the last three years. Remove that government spending, and a significant portion of India’s smaller regional news outlets would not survive.

The implications for editorial independence are real and well-documented. When government advertising is a newsroom’s primary lifeline, the incentive to hold that government accountable is structurally compromised. This is not a new observation, but it bears repeating in the context of business models: the problem of press freedom in India and the problem of sustainable local news are not separate issues. They are the same issue, expressed differently.

What Actually Pays for Indian News Today

The revenue picture varies significantly by outlet type, but the pattern is consistent: advertising dominates, reader revenue is minimal, and the gap between large national outlets and regional ones is wide.

_{Estimated revenue share by outlet type. Sources: FICCI-EY 2024, RSF India 2024, CASI analysis, industry reporting}

Large English-language outlets have the most diversified revenue, with some meaningful reader revenue and events income supplementing advertising. Hindi-language outlets remain heavily advertising-dependent, with government advertising playing a particularly significant role. Regional language outlets are the most exposed: high government advertising dependence, minimal reader revenue, and the fewest alternative options. Digital-first independents are the outliers, with some having built meaningful reader bases through memberships and donations. But they remain small, and their model has not yet scaled.

The Subscription Gap

Set India’s situation against the global picture and the scale of the gap becomes clear.

_{Source: Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2024. India estimate based on EY 2023 data
(1.5M paid subscribers from 886M users)}

Norway and Sweden, the markets most often held up as models, have 42 and 31 percent paying rates, respectively. The US sits at 20 percent. The global average across 20 markets is 18 percent. India is estimated at under 2 percent, and even that may be generous given that most estimates count e-paper subscribers from print households rather than genuinely new digital paying readers.

The standard explanation for this gap is price sensitivity. India is a developing market, the argument goes. People cannot afford to pay. But  Indians pay for streaming video, mobile data, WhatsApp Business subscriptions, and entertainment content at scale. The issue is that readers have never been taught to see news as something worth paying for, because the industry spent decades making it free and subsidising it through advertising.

The Habit We Never Built

Working at the intersection of journalism, technology and content in India, the pattern I keep coming back to is this. The conversation about sustainable news revenue almost always happens in English. And it almost always ends at the same place. English is where the money is. Everything else is a cost to be managed.

Even within regional journalism, there is a hierarchy. Hindi gets the most investment and the most advertiser attention because it has the largest single-language audience. Every other language sits further down. Telugu, Kannada, Tamil, Marathi, Bengali: each with tens of millions of readers, each treated as a secondary market that will be prioritised eventually, once the English and Hindi products are stable.

But the deeper problem is not the language hierarchy. It is that across all of Indian journalism, readers were never asked to value journalism enough to pay for it. And because the advertising model kept the lights on, newsrooms never had to ask that question seriously. The result is that when advertising weakens, when government ad budgets shift, when platforms change their algorithms, there is no reader base to fall back on. The floor collapses.

This is where the comparison with other markets becomes genuinely instructive. The US and UK are dealing with declining advertising revenue and trying to build reader revenue models late in the game. India has not yet even started that transition in any serious way. The question is not whether India will face a local news sustainability crisis. It is whether the industry will act before that crisis arrives, or after.

What Is Actually Working

Amid the structural problems, some things are working. They are worth paying attention to, not because they are perfect, but because they point toward what is possible.

Digital-first independent outlets that have built membership models have found that readers will pay, when they believe the journalism is genuinely independent and genuinely for them. Outlets that combine free access with optional membership, are transparent about their funding, and actively communicate their editorial independence have built loyal paying audiences. These are small in absolute terms. But the conversion rates suggest the appetite exists.

Regional language content is proving its commercial value in adjacent sectors. Streaming platforms that invested in regional language content have seen strong engagement and subscription growth from Tier 2 and Tier 3 markets. Over-the-top content in regional languages accounted for 50 percent of total streaming content consumed in India by 2022, according to PwC research. The audience for paid regional content exists. Journalism has simply not found a way to tap it yet.

Events and community models are emerging quietly. Journalism outlets that have moved beyond content to build genuine communities, through events, forums, and niche memberships, are finding revenue that advertising alone could never provide. The model is not new globally. In India, it remains largely untested at scale. That is the opportunity.

Revenue Models: What Exists, What Is Emerging, What Is Missing

_{Based on FICCI-EY 2024, EY Media Report 2023, PwC India 2024, Reuters Institute 2024, and industry analysis.}

What Other Markets Can Learn From India

The usual direction of learning runs the other way. India looks to Scandinavia for subscription models, to the US for digital innovation, to the UK for public media funding structures. That is reasonable. But there are things India’s situation reveals that other markets should pay attention to.

First: advertising dependency is a slow poison, not a sudden collapse. India’s crisis has been building for decades. The habit of making news free and funding it through advertising created a reader base that sees no reason to pay, and an advertising market that can hold journalism to account in ways that have nothing to do with editorial quality. Markets that are still advertising-dependent, including many local and regional outlets in the US and Europe, should read India as a preview of where that road leads.

Second: language is a business model question, not just an editorial one. The markets with the strongest reader revenue tend to be linguistically specific: Norwegian papers serving Norwegian readers, Finnish outlets serving Finnish readers. The intimacy of language creates the trust that makes people pay. Outlets that speak to readers in their own language, on their own terms, about their own communities, have a structural advantage in building paying audiences. That lesson travels.

Third: the path to reader revenue runs through habit, not price. India is not a poor market in the way the affordability argument implies. It is a market where the habit of paying for news was never built. Building that habit requires patience, consistency, and genuine editorial independence. It cannot be rushed by a paywall alone. Markets that are trying to pivot quickly from advertising to subscriptions are discovering the same thing.

Closing

India’s local news problem is not unique. It is the global local news problem at a scale and speed that makes the dynamics visible earlier and more sharply than elsewhere. The advertising model is weakening. Subscription habits have not been built. Government dependency creates editorial risk. Regional and vernacular journalism is structurally underinvested.

The question is not whether this will resolve itself. It will not. The question is whether the journalism and policy community acts on what India’s situation already makes plain, before other markets arrive at the same place with fewer options left.

Rudra Kasturi is a founder, investor, and strategy advisor who has worked across India’s largest media and technology companies, and who currently coaches CEOs and leadership teams, teaches AI, and helps companies scale in growing markets.

The post Who Pays for Local News in India appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

We’re navigating a fundamental shift in how people consume and verify reality. The modern crisis of trust stems from an architecture that has outpaced our collective ability to process information. While we have built technologies that prioritize frictionless delivery, we now have the opportunity to serve as the engineers of the systems that make truth possible. We’re currently in the midst of the most significant opportunity in the history of news: the chance to fundamentally redesign how we deliver value to a global, digitally-native audience.

The doomsday narrative only persists if we remain tethered to legacy distribution models and organizational structures. If we embrace our roles as architects of a new information ecosystem, the outlook is remarkably optimistic.

The Solution: Multi-Disciplinary Synthesis

Journalism requires a radical departure from the siloed newsrooms of the decade prior. Success in our current environment demands a synthesis of editorial excellence, product rigor, audience intelligence, and innovation strategy – this means embracing healthy risk-taking, rapid experimentation, succinct cycles of iteration, and most importantly…failure. This integrated approach served as the “secret sauce” for organizational resilience. Now it’s just table stakes.

At the News Product Alliance (NPA), we see that the most successful newsrooms treat product as a core strategic discipline. These organizations move past the old friction between the newsroom and the business office, embracing a model where product thinking scales editorial values. The data support this shift toward radical optimism: the 2025 NPA Census highlights that newsrooms prioritizing this synthesis report significantly higher audience retention and revenue diversification. You (the journalists and researchers in this community) are the leaders already proving that a better model exists.

Designing for Discernment

To build for the future, we must apply systems thinking to the way our brains process a digital feed. We are currently designing for a cognitive architecture that is easily overwhelmed by dopamine-driven delivery systems. As architects of information, our responsibility involves building environments that encourage critical inquiry.

At The Texas Tribune, our statewide framework for expansion illustrates this principle in action. We are designing a networked infrastructure that allows for local nuance within a high-capacity system. This represents an adaptable architecture anchored in community needs and powered by technology, yet guided by unwavering editorial standards. This framework allows us to defend democracy while simultaneously reinventing the mechanisms of its delivery.

Using Tech to Rebuild the Trust Bridge

For those who wonder how newsrooms can use technology to help improve trust, the answer lies in proximity and transparency. We can use AI and automated distribution as tools that liberate the journalist. By automating high-volume, low-context tasks like data sorting or transcription, we free our reporters to focus on high-level synthesis and the high-touch work of community building. Technology should serve as the scaffolding for our work, ensuring that human judgment remains the foundation. We’re using tools to close the distance between the newsroom and the neighbor.

The Unstoppable Future

History reminds us that every revolution in information, from the Gutenberg press to the telegraph, precipitated a crisis of authority. We’re currently in the “Interregnum,” the space between the legacy and emergent worlds. These periods of chaos are the historical birthplaces of progress.

Success in this new reality will belong to the leaders who can hold two seemingly opposing forces in balance: a relentless commitment to truth and a fearless embrace of innovation. One without the other is fragile. Together, they are unstoppable. Journalism is undergoing a sophisticated re-engineering, and the results are promising. We’re building the infrastructure for the next century of truth. Now we must ensure its architecture is as resilient as the mission it serves.

Upasna Gautam is Partner, Strategy & Innovation at The Texas Tribune and the Chairwoman of the Board of Directors for the News Product Alliance

The post The Hardware of Democracy: Upgrading Journalism’s Next Operating System appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

Letters From the Field

From Afghanistan and Nigeria to Ukraine, journalists speak of exile, legacy, and resilience. Move through the map to encounter their stories, insights, and calls to action. Discover stories from the journalists we interviewed by interacting with the highlighted sections of the map.

From Afghanistan and Nigeria to Ukraine, journalists speak of exile, legacy, and resilience. Move through the map to encounter their stories, insights, and calls to action.

•  

  

  Read the Full 
Letter from Afghanistan

  “Journalists are not just reporters of events; we are
  guardians of historical truth. In a world where censorship, propaganda and lies are so often promoted, our voices may be the only remaining record of a generation’s
  resistance.”

  — Zahra Joya, Editor-in-Chief of Rukhshana Media

•  

  

  Read the Full 
Letter from Guatemala

  In every case of repression, journalists adapted. From creating support and collaboration networks, to independent media archives or the creation of exile journalism. And in every case, the answer was not less journalism — but more.”

  — Jose Carlos Zamora, Regional Director for the Americas Committee to Protect Journalists

•  

  

  Read the Full 
Letter from Kenya

  During times of political turmoil, people often look for a savior or an alternative leader, and journalists, through bold and truthful reporting, are uniquely positioned to fill
  this gap.”

  — James Okong’o, Independent Digital Investigations Journalist

•  

  

  Read the Full 
Letter from Lebanon

  Courage does not have one single shape. Some days it’s loud. Some days it’s just staying alive to tell the next story.”

  — Joe Kawly, Producer & Host at The Diplomat

•  

  

  Read the Full 
Letter from Latin America

  In the face of governmental obstruction, declining transparency and intimidation strategies, there is one clear response: better journalism.”

  — Martha Ramos, Chief Editorial Officer of Organización Editorial Mexicana

•  

  

  Read the Full 
Letter from Nigeria

  In the darkest and most ferocious moments of Nigeria’s totalitarian experience, two survival strategies worked for us: courage and community.”

  — Dapo Olorunyomi, Publisher at Premium Times

•  

  

  Read the Full 
Letter from Serbia

  When those in power want to stay invisible,
  they don’t have to say ‘no.’ They just make things slow, complicated and exhausting – so you
  stop asking.”

  — Teodora Curcié, Data Journalist Center for Investigative at Journalism of Serbia

•  

  

  Read the Full 
Letter from Syria

  Our fight as journalists isn’t just against censorship; it’s against forgetting what
  freedom feels like.”

  — Lina Chawaf, CEO of Radio Rozana

•  

  

  Read the Full 
Letter from Ukraine

  Rarely do threats arrive all at once. They slip in quietly: an accreditation that never comes through, a source too frightened to speak, a records request endlessly delayed, an editor who shelves a story for
  being ‘too political’ ”

  — Tanya Kozyreva, Chief DC Correspondent at Suspilne

The post Letters From the Field appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

When I examined my interviewees’ responses to my inquiries about journalism’s technological future, it became clear that this shift toward higher volume production with limited staff pushes journalists to focus on the present and immediate future of news, leaving most journalists with little energy to consider long-term changes. This profound shift in the industry means the majority of daily news journalists cannot imagine more distant technological futures. This separates journalists from the discourse on long-term impacts of cutting-edge technology tools like artificial intelligence (AI). To safely move forward with AI and other emerging technologies in the newsroom, it is essential to enable daily news journalists to participate in imagining what the future relationship between journalism and AI might be.

What is the current relationship between journalism and AI?

Current uses of AI in news among my interviewees and others varies widely; it is used to create SEO-friendly headlines, summarize articles for social media, write and debug code, process documents with Optical Character Recognition (OCR), transcribe audio files and more. Each of these uses meets an immediate need in the newsroom: they contribute to attempts to streamline workflows, increase efficiency and expand coverage, often in hopes of increasing revenue.

These applications also primarily use out-of-the-box tools from technology companies like OpenAI, not open-source or bespoke tools created by and for journalists, though there are limited examples of this, from Rolli to track misinformation to Llamafile to use as a locally-run LLM. None of these applications fundamentally changes how audiences interact with news or substantially reimagines news workflows. Instead, journalists slot AI in as an aide or assistant.

What futures do journalists envision now?

I asked journalists, news leaders, journalism academics and journalism advocates, “If you could envision the ideal future for the relationship between journalism and AI tools, what would that look like?” The vast majority of interviewees jumped straight to making their current uses better — more accurate transcription, more reliable OCR, summaries without hallucination and so on. Many also mentioned their hopes for increased privacy and security with AI tools.

A small portion of interviewees noted that they don’t want AI and journalism to have a relationship at all. In these journalists’ minds, the cost — financial, social and environmental — of using AI tools is not worth small additions to efficiency or revenue.

Only a few interviewees had a vision that went beyond iterative improvement. Most of them were in leadership or product roles, not daily reporting. These ideas included offering individualized homepages curated by AI, so subscribers can see their most relevant stories first; a new technology development organization made for and by journalists that creates AI tools optimized for investigative work; and AI chatbots on news sites that can answer questions about current events based solely on coverage by that news organization, which have become a reality since I began interviews.

Daily journalists’ focus on iterative improvements to existing AI uses is indicative of a deeper trend towards short-term wins in newsrooms. Yet, the long-term health of the news industry will rely on journalists taking charge of technological futures, and of emerging tools themselves. The constant churn of daily news stunts imaginative technological futuring and leads newsrooms to rely on tools made and controlled by technology companies, stripping journalists of their future professional agency to decide what tools they use, who receives their data and, potentially, what stories they tell. If journalists use directive tools, like AI chatbots that suggest how to move forward with a task, without knowing how the tools generate a directive or what biases they have, then a level of uncertainty is imbued into the journalistic process — and while AI tools cannot be held accountable for this uncertainty, the journalists using them can be.

How can the news industry better facilitate long-term technological futuring?

If enabling journalists to imagine what journalism could look like in the distant future will make journalism more responsive, sustainable, and innovative, then action should be taken now to enable that. One way to do so is for newsroom leaders, news product developers and news strategists to make time for daily news journalists to step out of the constant deluge of news to think about the future, whether through office hours, surveys or communal brainstorming. These conversations might begin like my interviews did — with short-term issues — but journalists will rise to the challenge of thinking outside the box.

There is no silver bullet to understanding how journalism and emerging technology, like AI, will interact in the coming decades, but proactive futuring now could go a long way in putting journalism in the driver’s seat.

Emilia Ruzicka is a data journalist, researcher and editor. They recently graduated with their MA in media, culture, and technology from the University of Virginia. More information about Emilia and their work can be found at emiliaruzicka.com.

The post Integrating Emerging Technology in Newsrooms Must Preserve Journalistic Agency appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

In my recent PhD research — a culmination of 25 years in the field — I traced how foreign aid, particularly after 1989, supported a model of media development rooted in liberal democratic ideals: supporting civic voices, fighting disinformation, building watchdog institutions, and amplifying marginalized communities. Donors like USAID, Sida, Open Society Foundations, and others invested in the public good of media.

But here’s what I found: this model, while essential, is fragile. The fragility now cuts across geographic regions, levels of development and government regimes.

More than 1,600 journalists have been killed since 1992, and 361 were imprisoned in 2024 alone, per the Committee to Protect Journalists. Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index shows a stark deterioration in media freedom across every region. In many contexts, media capture by state or oligarchic interests has deepened, and surveillance and harassment of journalists has become routine.

At the same time, independent newsrooms are collapsing under financial strain; many independent outlets would not survive without donor support. A 2023 study by the Center for International Media Assistance, for example, found that fewer than 20% of donor-supported media outlets had sustainable business models in place. The majority rely on a patchwork of grants, limited advertising, or personal contributions from staff to keep operating.

In short: Donor assistance alone is not enough to sustain journalism around the world. The “Fourth Estate” ideal cannot exist without also having strong business models and sustained political investment.

We are in a transitional period, where the convergence of democratic backsliding, the collapse of past revenue models and digital disruption forces a reevaluation of how media development operates.

What we urgently need now is a new generation of support that combines donor resources with public-private partnerships, innovation in business models and a robust civil society movement that embeds access to information and freedom of expression into the heart of development. These rights must be seen not as optional ideals, but as foundational pillars of both political and economic progress.

Luckily, the sector is not starting from scratch. It has more than three decades of valuable experience to draw upon — work that unfolded in parallel with the rise of mobile technology, the mainstreaming of social media and growing global connectivity.

What we’ve learned from 30 years of media assistance

My research shows that the normative ideals from Four Theories of the Press — which laid out the four foundational models of authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility and Soviet communist — still guide the field today. The libertarian model, which champions a free marketplace of ideas and minimal government interference, and the social responsibility model, which suggests that media, though free, has an obligation to serve the public good and support democratic functioning, have been central to the design of donor-backed media development programs since the Cold War era. While these frameworks served important roles in promoting press freedom and democratic accountability, they have not kept pace with current challenges.

Donors have become adept at short-term interventions, routing funding through international intermediaries, but they have failed to address systemic issues like media capture, the decline of public interest journalism and the failure to treat media as a public good. Moreover, there are few scalable models or financial frameworks that realistically map what it costs to build a media system — and even fewer that can address the structural dependencies we’ve created.

These are not just market failures — they are governance and policy failures.

Donors now face a critical opening to reassess their media assistance. Long-haul progress, such as regulatory reform, policy innovation and building enabling environments, will take generational commitment. But we can start by recommitting to media as a cornerstone of democratic societies — one that centers local actors, emphasizes rights-based frameworks and treats journalism not as an afterthought, but as an essential public good — as well as by exploring the types of business models and modalities of financing that can effectively support public interest journalism.

Where media development should go next

This is an inflection point. Donors must go beyond traditional models of media development and commit to inclusive, forward-looking strategies. Civil society and local actors must be at the table, helping to shape new business and governance models. A more strategic, data-informed, and systems-level approach is not only possible — it is imperative.

Moving forward, sustainability cannot remain the sole metric of success for media development. Instead, we need to prioritize resilience — a concept that embraces adaptability, uncertainty, and the changing nature of the media landscape. We need to cultivate resilient ecosystems grounded in democratic values and human rights. Long-term strategies, flexible funding and revenue streams, and investment in legal and institutional reform are necessary, alongside support for civil society and journalism that is publicly accountable.

In new and developing democracies, there is a particular need to grapple with the unfinished business of localization. Most funding still flows through international intermediaries, rather than directly to local actors. As my interviews revealed, localization remains more rhetoric than reality, and the sector lacks viable, well-tested funding mechanisms to support homegrown media ecosystems. This directly contradicts what media practitioners across Hungary, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe made clear: media development is most effective when it is grounded in civil society. Whether through watchdog groups, advocacy coalitions or local journalism initiatives, civil society has proven to be the engine of democratic media reform. Donor strategies that align with this insight — and fund accordingly — are more likely to yield sustainable results.

Finally, it’s time to bring new stakeholders into the media development conversation. From technologists and researchers to economists, educators and civic leaders, the task of rebuilding public interest information systems must be shared. This is not just about saving journalism — it’s about renewing the democratic promise of communication itself.

These efforts should continue to draw inspiration from earlier global struggles to democratize communication and create a global project grounded in democratic values and local realities. The infrastructure to build this exists: initiatives like RightsCon, MozFest, GFMD, and regional networks across Africa, Latin America and Asia bring together journalists, civil society, policymakers and technologists and provide a strong foundation for future media development work, and now CNTI doing this at the global level.

As we move into this new era, I call on donors, foundations, business strategists, researchers and civil society to seek new methods of long-term media resilience by:

• Funding core operations and long-term strategies — not just projects.
• Embracing local ownership and power-sharing in media ecosystems.
• Reclaiming journalism as a public good and civic necessity.
• Rethinking coordination, sustainability, and the real costs of media systems.
• Bridging the gap between normative ideals and structural support mechanisms.

The scaffolding has been built. What’s needed now is the political will and sustained support to realize its potential. If democracy is to thrive, the media must be resilient — and that resilience must come through more than just donor assistance.

Susan Abbott, PhD, is a media development researcher and practitioner. She works as an independent consultant through Cross-Pollinate Consulting. Her dissertation explored donor influence on the development of media systems in Eastern Europe, Southern, and West Africa. She has worked with USAID, Internews, and a wide range of global civil society and philanthropic organizations.

The post Rethinking the Donor Playbook: What 30 Years of Media Development Have Taught Us appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

The role and evolution of news as a service 

News has different roles depending on whether viewed from the perspective of the industry or the consumer:

• Role 1 is to document the facts: research, investigate, verify and monitor the world around us and provide unbiased information. This is the very core of news journalism — its historical foundation. Evolution in this field can be broadly summarized as the tools of the trade, not the trade itself, being augmented by technology.

• Role 2 is to render this information pertinent: facilitate the consumer in rapidly turning this information into understanding, knowledge and learning, thus enabling them to feel empowered to act, change, improve, share and be useful to themselves and society. This is the “customer facing” aspect of news journalism — where its “service value” is delivered to and perceived by the end user.  

Evolutions under this second role include different formats (video, audio, multimedia, dataviz, …) and a broader range of topics (environment, inclusivity, social justice, …), delivered by increasingly diverse voices. Yet in principle, it is the same service (fact-based content), in a different format, via a different distribution platform (digital), which leaves this service competing with the plethora of other consumer-focused digital content out there on TikTok, Instagram Reels, YouTube and streaming, podcasts, etc. Regardless of your age, these platforms — or your AI of choice — are likely the first place you look for information, to learn something new or solve a problem.

Consumer behavior and expectations are changing rapidly, forcing nearly every industry to continuously and significantly evolve their service to compete for attention and deliver value. Beyond the now ubiquitous digitization and personalization, which are so prevalent they are not even deemed a service or competitive edge, consider the service evolution of these examples from everyday life: 

Each of these “evolved services” either empowers the user and/or increases the ease and efficiency (value) of the service to the user. However, the news industry continues to expect consumers to maintain the same content consumption behaviors and highly value the same historic service, resulting in a user needs gap.

News avoidance

News avoidance is a reaction to this user needs gap and a decline in the value of the service — a service that increasingly requires greater effort and investment on the part of the consumer to render information of use to them, with little or no additional return on investment as an end result. This service/effort deficit is further exacerbated by relentless push news alerts, a “service” which consumers often consider neither news- nor alert-worthy, and perceive as intrusive, time wasting and of little value.

Multiple data and reports tell us why people are turning away from news content, in all its formats. Consumers describe news today as:

• difficult to follow and understand
• too much effort (low value/return on time investment)

Let’s consider factchecking — the core role of journalism and a service the industry has invested millions of dollars, euros and hours in. Let’s ask the question “who started the war in Ukraine?” to three trusted media examples:

• AP provides a long text article, requiring multiple desktop scrolls to consume, that delivers the facts, detailed background information, historic context, images, etc.
• AFP provides a similarly long text article, again requiring multiple desktop scrolls, again with detailed information, quotes and context.
• The Kyiv Independent’s article “Who started the war in Ukraine?” provides a one-word fact-based response: “Russia.” But this simplicity and brevity is lost in the mass of peripheral information and “furniture” on screen including a pop-up, subscribe banner, call to action and a register button. When I forwarded this page to friends and colleagues in the news industry, most of them replied saying they couldn’t access the article and asking if it was behind a paywall!

By nature, fact checking is historic, rather than future-focused. All three sources report historical facts (role 1) to answer the question “who started the war in Ukraine?”. Yet despite years of effort and billions in investment, the service approach (role 2) is not very different from a digitized version of what would have appeared in newsprint decades back. This approach is far from the needs and expectations of digital content consumers who lack the time, skills and context required to process lengthy texts and transform historic facts into useful information and knowledge that empowers and equips them for their future.

Stuck in shock, denial, frustration or depression  

Digital consumers today parse the value of content rapidly (in less than two seconds, and certainly less than one scroll) before deciding if it’s worth investing in and engaging with further. Content that evokes fear, shock or insecurity triggers a natural emotional response: a rapid decrease in morale and confidence, and consequently, a further reduced capacity to process complex information and transform it into useful knowledge that could help manage fear or navigate the issue at hand.

Source: Elisabeth Kübler-Ross Foundation

Another component of news avoidance surfaces in the Kübler-Ross Change Curve. The curve depicts the typical emotional reactions to negative news. Based on the five stages of the 1969 Grief Curve, it provides a structure for understanding emotional responses to and progression through change, from shock and depression, to feeling capable of engaging with a situation and ultimately integrating the change. The most common response to bad news is to plunge into one of the first four stages: shock, denial, frustration and depression. Left in these stages, resignation and an inability to take action sets in.

Counseling, skills training and support are commonly employed to facilitate progress through these emotions to the stages where morale starts to come back up and you feel like you have some understanding of the situation, can take agency and start to feel empowered. But what happens when we don’t have the skills (media literacy, historic knowledge, geopolitical context, critical thinking), support resources or even the time to start progressing through the stages before being pulled back into shock, denial, frustration or depression by another shock? That is, what happens when we are shocked anew each time we receive a push notification, news alert or engage with the news cycle?

This is one of the other major reasons cited for news avoidance: the negative effect it has on mood, along with a sense of fatigue and overload. News, as a service today, is primarily depressing information that you don’t know what to do with, don’t know what to do about or don’t have time to react to.

What is to be done?  

Alongside news avoidance, AI use is rising and becoming an increasingly common user behaviour.

Let’s revisit “who started the war in Ukraine?” and, adopting this trend, ask Google’s and OpenAI’s GPTs this question.

Source: Screenshot taken on March 14, 2025

Source: Screenshot taken on March 14, 2025

In the cases above, Gemini and ChatGPT both deliver factual and historically accurate information (role 1). Both render these in a pertinent response to the question (role 2). However, their service differs significantly from trusted news sources in two key ways.

Both LLMs go beyond the “historic service” approach and deliver a service more closely aligned with current digital consumers’ habits, needs and expectations:

• Short, easily digestible information, zero scrolls required. 
• A prompt box allowing you to dig deeper, or query anything you don’t understand in their response, enabling you to make this information more pertinent and of great value to you.  

This is now the “evolved service standard” digital users expect, and many industry sectors are rapidly adapting to deliver on.

Google’s lucrative search engine business, feeling threatened by the service level GenAI offers and users now expect, recently announced its latest Labs release AI Overviews, which aims to take Chrome closer to this ChatGPT/Gemini service and user experience.   

The news industry is also starting to experiment. The Independent recently announced the launch of Bulletin, a platform based on Google Gemini that publishes bullet point briefings designed for “seriously busy” audiences. 

Conclusion

News avoidance is not necessarily a sign that people don’t want accurate news and information. It may well instead be a reflection of a service gap: Most geopolitical, socio-economic, environmental and even sports alerts and headlines throw news consumers back to the beginning of the emotional change curve. Meanwhile LLMs and chatbots provide (usually) accurate information, with zero scrolls, and the opportunity to evolve or refine the information and rapidly enhance its pertinence and value to you. What’s stopping people from rapidly drawing value from news information and having a chance of progressing through the Kübler-Ross Curve? 

Newsrooms, agencies and journalists must remain committed to role 1 and document the facts,  research, investigate, verify and monitor the world around us and provide unbiased information to consumers, citizens and societies.

But if we want unbiased, fact-based, accurate information to be valued by consumers, citizens and societies, the news industry needs to recognize when even the most ardent of news consumers are turning off push alerts and avoiding the headlines.

Kristen Davis is CEO and Founder of CinqC.

The post It Takes More than Facts: Understanding the News Avoidance Gap appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

US-taxpayer-funded support for media freedom and development around the world likely peaked last year. Counting all of the resources spent by US AID, the State Department, and the National Endowment for Democracy, at the time that the funding freeze was put in place the US was spending $150 – $200 million annually, easily a third of all official development assistance to the media sector globally. Also imperiled, and equally important, is the authority and diplomatic influence the US was bringing to the cause.

Yet US support for media freedom, contrary to what its critics might say, was not the driving force for an astroturf movement. With or without US backing, scrappy journalists have used whatever technology they can find—radio transmitters, fax machines, and (more recently) smart phones—to stubbornly carry out their profession in service to basic ideals of transparency. The self-sacrificing commitment of journalists earning laughable wages under threat of imprisonment, or worse, is what inspires the solidarity of the press freedom movement.

As such, the movement will endure, and could eventually emerge stronger, but a US retreat from the cause will have at least three major consequences in the coming years. 

Citizens in the most repressive countries will have less access to news and reliable information 

The US directed more of its support to closed autocracies than any other government funder. The already devastating impact of the funding freeze on journalism in Myanmar is a sign of what’s to come. Media outlets operating fully or partly from exile from countries such as China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia, Belarus, and Afghanistan will bear the brunt. Some of these outlets will not survive. Some will survive by serving diaspora audiences, diverting them from the audiences back home. The world will be less informed about what is happening in those countries, and many citizens will become hostage to government propaganda. 

Exile media outlets, with US support, have also been innovating, including by making more creative use of social media platforms and, in some cases, building their own apps with integrated technologies to circumvent the censors back home. Exile media outlets were coalescing around new hubs and networks that allowed them to learn from one another about how to safely work with in-country contributors and how to diversify their income. The direct support to media outlets serving repressive environments is essential, of course, but the additional layers of assistance that had been driving its evolution were a source of renewed hope in the inexorability of independent journalism. 

Independent media will shrink in the countries facing Russian aggression and hostility 

US support for journalism was also prominent in the countries facing the most coercive pressure from Russia. 

In Ukraine, Russia’s invasion sparked a flight to quality, with audiences shifting to independent online outlets such as Ukrainska Pravda, public TV broadcaster Suspilne, and regional radio broadcasters. But audiences do not translate into revenue during the war; advertising revenue has plummeted while newsroom costs have rocketed. US support has been essential for Ukrainian journalists to keep citizens informed and document Russian war crimes. About 60 percent of the Ukrainian news professionals recently surveyed said that the US funding freeze would have a “catastrophic” impact on their newsrooms.

Amid much less attention, the loss of US funding has also been devastating to many media outlets in Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, and the Western Balkans. Across those countries, Russian-aligned actors are exerting immense pressure in the information environment: sometimes operating large-scale outlets, flooding the digital environment with toxic content, or finding ways to weaponize advertising as a tool of soft censorship. But commonly across these contexts, international funding remains a vital source of independence.

The international networks of learning, innovation, cooperation, and coordination will recede  

High-level attention and diplomatic coordination on issues of press freedom and freedom of expression are a relatively new and exciting phenomenon. Multi-lateral initiatives such as the Media Freedom Coalition, Summit for Democracy, and Freedom Online Coalition are still in their institutional infancy and have struggled to define their objectives, refine their mechanisms, and, above all, to attract leadership from a diversity of states with the capacity to lead them. These initiatives, and the meaningful momentum they were creating for democratic norms, will falter. 

Investigative journalism networks such as CLIP, OCCRP, and ARIJ—by virtue of both direct loss of funding to the networks as well as the loss of funding to the news outlets that are network members—will struggle to maintain their achievements of recent years. The coordinated cross-border reporting and co-publishing agreements of these networks are essential for effectively and safely reporting on corruption. These networks have also proven to be one of the most effective means of capacity building, providing the kind of long-term, on-the-job mentoring that is required to mint an investigative journalist. 

Finally, US support in recent years has also shifted towards a stronger focus on media viability or sustainability. Some of the work engaging with the systemic challenges to media viability courted controversy within the US, and some grant-funded media outlets have themselves pushed back against the notion of sustainability. The shift in emphasis, however, towards audience data and entrepreneurial news business models has overall had a positive effect on the field. Amid the shortage of funding to come, the pressure to demonstrate sustainability will be even greater, while the international cooperation needed to truly promote sustainability might not.

What is to be done?  

The funding gap left by the US will not be filled by US philanthropy or European donors. Where new funding does become available, it should seek to fill some of the most pressing safety and operational needs of journalists working in closed autocracies and on the frontlines of authoritarian aggression, where other forms of support are exceedingly scarce. 

Otherwise, doing more with less will be essential. Even before this crisis, concerns were growing about the amount of international assistance reaching local actors on the frontlines. By account of one OECD study, only eight percent reaches local organizations. Localizing assistance brings its own set of challenges, but it will be an important part of the response.

 Finally, the collapse of US support in this field should provide an incentive to jettison the lingering blueprint models of media development. International media development has made great progress in this direction, not least of all through the OECD’s recent principles for media support. We must find a way to sustain the mutual learning and innovation that has been fostered across borders and promote multi-stakeholder coalitions that can build alliances between government actors, the private sector, publishers, and civil society. 

We can mourn the opportunity that we have lost, but we must resolve to ensure that the next opportunity is not.

Nicholas Benequista is a Senior Director for the Center for International Media Assistance at the National Endowment for Democracy.

The post We Just Lost Our Best Chance in a Generation to Expand Media Freedom appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

This is a never ending process, but with support from organizations like CNTI, my region can, and must exercise the right to question its leaders based on solid facts and hold them accountable to what they say or do. Without that, we will never secure justice, human rights and democracy.

In the troubled region I come from, it often feels as though the world is looking somewhere else. Let me talk to you about my colleagues in the Middle East, some of whom are living in the ruins of their homes in Gaza or Lebanon, mourning the family members who have been killed, scavenging for food and water for their loved ones who are still alive.

They define what is best in our journalism, the refusal to give up, the refusal to crouch in fear and indulge in self pity, and the unwavering commitment to document the human suffering, the battles, the criminality and the selfless commitment of so many who daily risk their lives to help others. 

They report the story and they are the story. 

Journalism, real journalism, is never easy in my region. Many of my colleagues have been sacked or imprisoned or died. 

In the West, their cases get little, if any, publicity. 

I understand that stability in my region is a legitimate foreign policy goal for the West. Terror has to be fought. But aiming for stability in the region also means accepting injustice, the lack of human rights and a press that’s far from free. 

Look at Tunisia’s slide into a dictatorship after the country became a poster child of the so-called Arab spring. It is a grizzly example of how one leader can use democracy to gain power and then use power to destroy the system that put him there.

The West has been largely silent about the President’s coup against democracy. Why? He promised to work with Europe to stem the flow of migrants in return for millions of euros. Egypt is another example. In March, the EU gave Cairo millions of dollars to curb illegal migration in the Mediterranean.  

The list is long. 

As for my own experience, I was summoned recently to a government office and invited to choose between my loyalty to my job and my loyalty to my country. I told them: “I love my country and my job, and that’s why I was reporting on those who broke its lows and looted its riches.”

The question went away, but inevitably it will return to me and to others.

I’ve been fired from too many positions: chief editor of the Jordan Times, and founder, editorial adviser and columnist for Al-Ghad, what was sold to us by its publisher, and to society as the newspaper that would look for the truth by peeling away the camouflage that had obscured it.

The reason for my sudden firing by the government and the intelligence was simple. 

I refused to toe the official editorial line or give up my commitment to a free press. 

In both instances, I was replaced by the man who is now Jordan’s foreign minister, Ayman Al-safadi, a former journalist for the Jordan Times, where I began my career in 1985.

My experience and that of hundreds of brave investigative journalists I worked with throughout my 40-year career as an independent journalist and mentor, has shown that journalism in the region can never be a safe profession, and yet it’s all relative.

Tonight, as every night, reporter Mohammed Abu Shahmeh will lie under the nylon roof he has built on the site of his destroyed house in Gaza City, where some 40 members of his family have been killed. He says he has no time to grieve them. We bury nine corpses in one go and immediately leave to find water and food. For us, this has become a normality. This is what he said. His family is starving to death, he tells me, asking me if I could provide him with some cans of fava beans and a bag of rice. I am unable to send him across the heavily-guarded border into Israel a microphone for his mobile, and the bronze statue he recently won for best investigation in Beirut. 

Tonight, as every night, brave Sudanese journalist Fatha Rahman will eat dinner in his tiny new room in the UK after fleeing death threats by warlords who want to silence Israeli journalism.

Iraqi colleague Assad Zelzali and his four-member family will be asleep in their new refuge in the West. In one year, he was beaten up four times by militias, sustaining severe back injury. They called him a traitor because he was working for Al Harra, a satellite TV channel funded by the U.S. government. 

Yemeni colleague, Asil Sariah, who won refugee status in Sweden November 2023, is waiting to reunite with his family after fleeing a civil war raging for nine years.

So I’d like to dedicate my award to Mohammed, Fatah, Assad and Asil who have been investigating corruption and injustice with me — first at the Amman-based Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ) which I co-founded in 2006 and ran until early January 2020, and now at  OCCRP.

I would like to dedicate it to the hundreds of brave Arab colleagues I have worked with over 40 years. They risk everything day after day to bring us the news and document the facts. They represent the best of Arab society.

And with this award, I salute their courage and sadly, all too often, their ultimate sacrifice. 

Rana Sabbagh is the Senior MENA Investigations Editor at The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.

The post Stories of Success at a High Price: Accountability Journalism in the Largely Autocratic MENA appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

Overly negative hype for AI in general was in fact the subject of my most recent paper, “The AI Technopanic and Its Effects” which coauthored is Nirit Weiss-Blatt, PhD and Adam Thierer, argues that overly negative media coverage has a negative effect on public and policymaker opinion which can lead to the creation of innovation-stifling regulations. And The Techlash and Tech Crisis Communication a book by Dr. Weiss-Blatt provides a rigorous analysis of an overly critical tech media ecosystem.

However, in our study of recent uses of AI in election material, there was a bright spot that bucked this trend. A tech critical media helped the public get to the truth. It also highlighted the important interplay between journalists, technology, social media platforms, and new institutions combined in an effort to help the public understand when AI is used in election material.

As we were compiling the summary for our AI and elections tracker, it became clear that a story from 2023 stood out as one of the most prevalent use cases so far of AI generated content in election material. A campaign affiliate of Florida Governor and former presidential candidate Ron DeSantis’s campaign used AI generated images in a video without any label. We described the incident in our Substack post:

• On June 5, 2023, DeSantis War Room, a communications arm of the former Ron DeSantis presidential campaign, posted a video on X that showed real clips and audio of President Trump explaining why he didn’t fire Anthony Fauci. Interspersed in the video (between 00:24 and 00:30) was an image collage that included both real and apparently AI-generated images of President Trump hugging and showing affection to Fauci. The video did not note it included AI-generated or manipulated images. According to NPR reporting, the fact-checking organization AFP detected the fake images two days after they were posted. The post received a community note on X. The story was also widely covered by major news organizations. The three fake collage images have distinct characteristics of being AI generated using a tool like DALL-E or Midjourney. However, it is not known which system was used. On January 21, 2024 DeSantis dropped out of the presidential campaign.

Note the flow of events: a media-funded fact-checking company identified this content within two days, Community Notes members on X labeled the video with context (the exact timing of the notice is unclear), and multiple media outlets (Reuters, New York Times, CNN, NPR, The Verge) all reported on the presence of AI content.

The bright spot of the incident described above is the distributed yet collaborative effort between journalists, media companies, businesses, social media platforms, and individual internet users. It’s a collaborative effort that shows that systems exist for dealing with fake AI generated content.

Each stage of the verification process highlighted a particular set of institutions that could provide a useful model for dealing with AI-generated mis- and disinformation in the future.

The Third Party Institution

Most of the media stories which reported on this instance credited the fact-checking organization AFP Fact Check with flagging the incident first. AFP Fact Check is, as their website describes, “…a department within Agence France-Presse (AFP), a multi-lingual, multicultural news agency whose mission is to provide accurate, balanced and impartial coverage of news wherever and whenever it happens in the world on a continuous basis.” Their funding comes from the French government and corporate clients from media and technology. Their operating expenditures in 2021 were 309 million Euros. Because of their funding and place in the global media ecosystem, they were likely able to quickly notify wire and news outlets with this information. Other fact checkers and watchdog groups, both for and non-profit, could easily fill a similar role.

The Role of Platforms and Community Notes

In addition to the fact checking from AFP, the original post received a Community Notes notification on X.com which remains in place. It reads, “At 0:25 in this video, a collage of photos of President Trump hugging Anthony Fauci appear. These pictures are not real; they are AI-generated images.” Community Notes was a feature that started as Birdwatch on Twitter in 2021. It was designed to democratize the content moderation efforts of X (formally Twitter). This increases the capacity of large social media platforms to moderate content  which is crucial due to the volume of content posted. After Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter and rebrand to X, Birdwatch was reactivated and renamed Community Notes. According to X, there are over 500k Community Notes contributors as of May 2024. Contributors must meet certain criteria and are approved by employees of X. Not just anyone can participate. Early indications from some studies say that it is effectively combating misleading information. Other major platforms like YouTube, encouraged by the successes of Community Notes, are experimenting with similar efforts.

Media

Stepping into the discussion alongside fact checkers and X Community Notes were media outlets and wire services. These journalists, companies, and institutions provided the necessary contextual reporting service to describe the context of what happened, including reporting on Community Notes and AFP’s fact check. They served as a third and additional source of validation for the DeSantis video included content that was likely generated by AI. Their reach was likely far wider than that of Community Notes or AFP so, in addition to service as a validator, they served a crucial function in spreading the word.

The Path Forward

In the midst of concern and worry about the impact of AI generated media content in elections, this case study provides a reason for hope. Media outlets play a vital role providing reach that users of X or dedicated fact checking organizations do not have.

In the long run, media outlets working in conjunction with platforms, platform users, and fact checking organizations, could help restore lost trust in media sources. The very nature of this multi-institutional effort means media outlets and journalists aren’t alone in their verification efforts. This multi-institutional landscape also benefits audiences who might trust one method over another. All of these institutions reciprocally support each other making the system as a whole stronger.

These positive developments are also happening in the context of government threats to speech on platforms and threats against journalists. The Future of Free Speech at Vanderbilt University has tracked a notable rise in speech restrictive policies in 22 democracies across the globe. As their most recent report says, “Except for 2015, every year witnessed a majority of developments limiting expression, with a noticeable upsurge in 2022.” Journalists around the world face constant challenges and pressure. Here in the US, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Murthy v Missouri, although laying good groundwork for restrictions against government jawboning, did not provide the clarity hoped for by free speech advocates. A system with multiple and different modes of accountability is better able to withstand censorship efforts.

With all these trends in a global ecosystem of information abundance and new means of producing convincing content with AI tools, there’s a need now more than ever for a robust, distributed, multi-institutional system of information verification. This particular case study provides hope that current systems and efforts can rise to the task of telling the real story. Then it’s up to the readers on whether they believe all the sources or not.

Policymakers should take note. Instead of pursuing new laws banning AI generated content in election material—which would have profound free speech implications—they should take stock of how well current tools are actually performing. At least in the US, they’re performing well enough to counter the calls for any government bans on AI-generated content.

Conclusion

There remain many challenges in an information environment as dense as the 21st Century. This example is by no means meant to imply that all worries are over, whether that be concerns about an overly critical media industry or disinformation online or any related issues. Much remains to be done. However, what this example does demonstrate is that there is actually a place for a multi-institutional effort to highlight some of the high profile instances, which are the ones of greatest concern. In a discussion that’s often overwhelmed by bad news, whether of the media or despair about manipulated content, there are glimmers of hope that show all of us how there can be a better and effective way forward into the future.

Taylor Barkley is the Director of Public Policy at the Abundance Institute.

The post Media, Technology, and Civic Institutions are Up to the Task of Dealing with Negative AI Generated Election Content appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

The DSA structure and country level application

According to the European Commission, the goal of the DSA is to foster a safer online environment by providing stronger protection for users’ fundamental rights. Although the law is quite expansive, it is important to highlight its impact on social media platforms through changes in platform liability, the nation-level Digital Services Coordinators (DSC), and trusted flaggers.

As in the E-Commerce Directive (the foundational legal framework for online services in the EU), providers are still not liable for illegal content until they are aware of it. However, the new reporting mechanisms introduced in the legislation give users and public authorities a direct mechanism to alert providers of such content, of which, providers are required to respond to in a ‘timely manner’. This will induce pressure for quick responses.

Within each country, an independent institution will be chosen to be in charge of implementation. If service providers are established in their respective states, that country’s DSC has investigative and enforcement powers. Additionally, and especially important in the case of Serbia, the DSC certifies trusted flaggers.

Notices of illegal content or content that goes against a platform’s Terms of Service from trusted flaggers are to be given priority by the platform and are required to be processed without undue delay. Similar to notices from users, notices from flaggers will be sufficient notice for platforms to be liable for illegal content.

DSC independence is crucial due to its oversight functions, its role as a complaints body, designating trusted flaggers, and more. A non-independent DSC has a strong probability of suppressing freedom of expression.

State of media freedom

In Serbia, media pluralism is characteristically weak, and independent media is systematically disadvantaged by the government. Pro-government groups overwhelmingly control print, television, and radio outlets. Direct ownership of private media by the government or party officials is banned by the government; however, an indirect state ownership model is employed by an overwhelming number of outlets. Critical and opposition media do exist; however, they have a fraction of the airspace granted to pro-government outlets. 

In July 2022, the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM) awarded the four national frequencies to only pro-government channels. Now, if citizens want to access non-government-controlled media, they have to actively search them out and often pay extra to view programming. Consequently, pro-government television and tabloids are much more easily available, and much of the public is not exposed to independent channels. Currently, the easiest way for citizens to access dissenting voices is through social media.

The role of media regulators

The issues throughout Serbia’s political system, characterized as competitive authoritarianism, have resulted in a lack of independence in Serbia’s media regulatory bodies. Similar to EU member states, Serbia’s DSC is likely to be a media regulator. Whichever of Serbia’s two media regulators is chosen to be the DSC, the other will likely be a competent authority and assist in implementation. In Serbia, REM, or the Regulatory Body for Electronic Communications and Postal Services (RATEL), are favored. Although both, on paper, are legally and financially independent institutions, in practice, there are innumerable concerns.

While neither is preferable, REM in particular lacks even a pretense of independence. Numerous investigations repeatedly reveal REM’s consistent failure to enforce media regulations, allowing pro-government channels to violate rules. REM applies legislation selectively and has a clear bias towards the ruling party and government-run outlets. If REM is chosen to implement the DSA in Serbia, it can be assumed that the requests of the ruling party will be a consistent priority. When compared to REM, RATEL is known for operating more transparently and would be preferred by digital rights activists.

State of investigative journalism

In line with the deteriorating political climate in recent years, the relationship between the Serbian government and critical media has become increasingly hostile. Smear campaigns against activists are common in the media and in rhetoric from government officials and supporters. It has become common for MPs from the National Assembly to attack journalists openly during parliamentary sessions and at other official occasions.

Government influenced tabloids directly attack government critics using names, their associated media outlets, or other specific and personal information. It is often that journalists are dehumanized and tabloids commonly describe critical outlets as “hateful media”, ”mercenary media,” and more. Repeatedly, these tabloids accuse critical journalists of outrageous sentiments, such as justifying wounded Serbian children and relativizing crimes against innocent Serbs. It is common for critical journalists to be accused of collaborating with the CIA, hoping for a civil war in Serbia, acting as foreign agents, or being enemies of the state.

Civil society and journalists express concerns

To understand how DSA implementation might affect critical voices in Serbia, including civil society organizations (CSOs) and investigative journalists, I interviewed nine different organizations. Of these nine, six were CSOs and three were investigative journalist outlets. The sample size of the journalists is considerably smaller than the CSOs due to many outlets being forced to close due to strategic lawsuits against public participation suits (SLAPPs). 

The interviews found that all of the organizations use social media to promote their work, spread their message, and increase their beneficiaries. Moreover, almost all have had extremely negative interactions with the government and its supporters. All three investigative journalist outlets interviewed have received threats directed towards individual reporters or the organization itself. The severity of the incidents vary based on the topic of the story; however, any story that mentions the wars of the 1990s or the president and his family almost always receives some backlash. Journalists are repeatedly faced with death threats, property destruction, harassment, and more.

Additionally, many organizations encounter challenges with their content being excessively moderated by the platforms themselves. Two of the three journalism outlets have had issues with verification status on Meta platforms. Without verification status, they are unable to boost political posts, which greatly impacts the reach of their stories. 

Impacts on journalism

Once the DSA is implemented in Serbia, the Serbian DSC will not directly control social media content. However, platforms are likely to rely on flags from DSCs and trusted flaggers and prioritize swift removal to evade liability, and they will likely use algorithms that may overlook regional and political nuances, leading to rapid removal.

The impact of the DSA in Serbia hinges on the DSC’s role in implementation, oversight, and its authority to select trusted flaggers. Due to the likelihood of non-independence, it is safe to assume that the DSC will align its actions with the goals of the ruling party. The rhetoric and actions of government-run media, social media bots, official and unofficial statements, and party support for CSOs and IJs are representative of the party’s opinion of critical voices in Serbia. Consequently, much of the content posted by critical voices is likely to be flagged by Serbia’s DSC and trusted flaggers. 

Understanding the relationship between IJs, CSOs, and the Serbian government, coupled with the high likelihood of a government-influenced DSC, leads to the conclusion that the implementation of the DSA in Serbia will be detrimental for CSOs and critical journalists. While both groups will be affected, the current government dynamics suggest that investigative journalist outlets may face more immediate and direct repercussions. This described situation is especially destructive in Serbia due to the country’s lack of media freedom. Social media platforms, currently out of the government’s control, provide space for critical voices, especially with the younger generation. Previously seen as a refuge for critical voices, under the DSA, social media could be subjected to government influence.

This research offers a grim outlook on the future of critical voices in Serbia. Nonetheless, Serbian civil society has a strong track record of successfully opposing legislation with severe impacts on human rights. The public’s awareness of the DSA and its consequences is vital for the country to safeguard and enhance the current state of freedom of expression and other rights. Serbia’s extensive and vibrant civil society plays a crucial role in upholding fundamental rights, and its efforts must be actively protected.

Emily Wright is a Fulbright Research Fellow with Partners for Democratic Change Serbia.

The post Impacts of the Digital Services Act on Critical Voices in Serbia appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

A recent survey with over 3,000 journalists from several countries showed that just about 5% are using generative AI (Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude, LLaMa and others) tools regularly, while 28% use it in some capacity. This figure is impressively low, given what those tools can achieve for journalists.

This tells us that journalists still haven’t found a daily routine for those types of resources, or simply don’t find them useful at all right now for their own purposes. After all, it is a lot of work, trial and error to eventually find the right balance to include new tools in a routine. 

But the main issue isn’t that journalists individually are not seeing AI as a valuable resource, most journalists do, but rather that organizations are taking a long time, as a group, to bring together the moving pieces that will make this resource an intrinsic part of newsrooms as whole — proofreading, automatic summarization, data classification, data visualization and many more things. (Please note that I did not say “content creation”).

There are a lot of projects and experiments, but few actual journalism-centric products. Journalism organizations are, right now, adhering to policies and projects from Big Tech organizations, while trying to navigate the landscape without unnecessary friction (well, maybe not the New York Times), getting to know the field and the rules.

At the same time, many different industries have been pouring money to invest in AI-powered solutions, leaving media organizations as buyers of subscription-based technologies that, in a way, they helped create (by providing high quality training data for new language models). 

The whole dynamic puts journalists in a very sensitive position: as companies start to deploy products and programs for newsrooms (like Google’s initiative to offer an AI tool to produce content from public sources), the market becomes smaller and smaller for news organizations to come up with their own services, for their own needs and their own interests, generating their own revenue.

OpenAI’s agreement with local news organizations in the US and big media groups in Europe adds further complexity to this equation, especially because it involves money. It is a step forward in a good direction and it signals the value of journalistic content. And, sure enough, if deep pocketed tech companies want to send money our way, we should accept it. But it also keeps news organizations within tech companies’ low orbit, and we all remember the fate of several news organizations that relied solely on Facebook, Google and other platforms as their business model — a great reminder that we need revenue from innovative tools and methods from our own making as well.

Journalists report on the newest technical aspects of AI, on how many parameters and context windows it now has. They write about regulation and how parliaments all over the world are approaching this question. They publish complex analysis that explain and evaluate the opacity of copyright and the training of new large language models. And yet their own use of AI capabilities is basic to say the least.

There is, understandably, some fear among media professionals that those new, enhanced large language models might come for their jobs. Tools like the one created by Google only make those fears worse. However, it all means that it is even more important that news organizations partner up to create their own thing.

The Associated Press has been doing a very interesting job around AI in the past year, especially around fact-checking. The News York Times is pushing ahead as well. We need more of that, not only from major news organizations, but from all over this industry.

Journalists need to understand, in the end, that AI is a resource, a tool and that it needs humans behind it. It can help journalists in more menial aspects of our trade by handling time-consuming tasks and it can completely fix typos and other silly mistakes that our weary eyes fail to catch. But as good as they are right now, their job is to pile word after word based on statistical parameters — they are unable to create knowledge, only to replicate it. It needs human judgment behind it to be really effective. I doubt this situation will change anytime soon, especially in sight of new upcoming regulations and risk assessments.

This is undoubtedly a tricky field to cross, but one in which newsrooms nevertheless need to venture forth.

Sérgio Spagnuolo is Executive-Director at Brazilian newstech organization Nucleo Jornalismo and Innovations Consultant at the International Press Institute.

The post Journalists Have Yet to Build Products With AI appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.