SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
freedom of the press
Today's Social Media Are No Longer Safe for Journalism
This existential moment calls for a global social media platform for independent news media.
Mar 21, 2025
Hannah Arendt, the German-American political theorist who studied totalitarian regimes, noted in 1974 that “The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed?”
Fifty years later, we have nearly reached that moment. This is existential for all independent (i.e., not allied with a political party or authoritarian regime) news organizations and their ability to reach audiences in the social media space.
Social media like Twitter (now X) and Facebook became important environments for the news media to enter two decades ago because they are where millions of people congregate online. For journalism organizations, the goal has been to post interesting stories and get referrals—those users who click through to the news site and boost web page views.
Yet, that relationship has fallen apart. Ultimately, tech companies are not interested in helping journalism or aiding civil discourse. The annual Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism digital news report for 2025 notes “big falls in referral traffic to news sites from Facebook (67%) and Twitter (50%) over the last two years.”
The even bigger problem for independent news media is that most social media platforms are increasingly antithetical to freedom of the press.
There are millions of people in the social media space, and journalism shouldn’t leave them behind.
Since Elon Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion in 2022 and turned it into X, it’s become the disinformation-drenched social platform of the Donald Trump administration. This year, genuflecting to Trump, Meta (corporate parent of Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp) announced it would drop its independent fact-checking program in the U.S. in favor of an anemic, crowd-sourced “community notes” system, which has already been a failure at X. Another popular news platform, TikTok, has serious disinformation problems, security liabilities and an uncertain future.
Several news organizations around the globe decided they won’t take it anymore. NPR stopped posting on X in 2023, after the platform insisted on designating it as “U.S. state-affiliated media.” More recently, The Guardian announced it would stop posting on X, concluding it is “a toxic media platform.” Dagens Nyheter, the Swedish newspaper of record, Le Monde, the French newspaper of record, and La Vanguardia, the leading newspaper in Barcelona, quit X, too. The European Federation of Journalists, representing about 320,000 journalists, did the same. “We cannot continue to participate in feeding the social network of a man who proclaims the death of the media and therefore of journalists,” EFJ president Maja Sever wrote.
But, simply quitting X only eliminates the worst option and settles for the slightly less bad options that remain.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
There are millions of people in the social media space, and journalism shouldn’t leave them behind. For example, 54% of Americans get their news often or sometimes from social media. Adults 18-29 are the heaviest users of social media platforms. They deserve a social media platform that respects and informs them.
That’s why legitimate news media should band together and regain the autonomy they ceded to third-party social media. Independent news organizations–large and small–should cooperatively create and control their own social media platform that amplifies news and public information, encourages links to member news organizations, and excludes misinformation and disinformation.
Journalism has been so beaten down by big tech that it’s hard to imagine a different way of doing things.
The model for this is something almost as old as modern journalism, too: The Associated Press, an international cooperative nonprofit news agency. As the AP tells its founding story, “In 1846, five New York City newspapers funded a pony express route through Alabama to bring news of the Mexican War north faster than the U.S. Post Office could deliver it.” The problem with social media is similar–if it’s not working, work collectively to build another way. And, like the AP, it could be a global cooperative.
Journalism has been so beaten down by big tech that it’s hard to imagine a different way of doing things. But, a news-controlled social media platform could develop features that would demonstrate the multimedia ability of news organizations and enable the audience to create social connections in new and entertaining ways. Users could adjust their feeds to focus on local, regional, national, or international news, or whatever mix and topics makes sense to them, so all legitimate news organizations of any size get to be part of the platform.
Which news organizations and journalists could be part of such a social media cooperative?
Reporters Without Borders, the international journalism nonprofit, already has a powerful statement for fostering global information spaces for the common good, where “information can only be regarded as reliable when freely gathered, processed and disseminated according to the principles of commitment to truth, plurality of viewpoints and rational methods of establishment and verification of facts.” This would enable a broad range of journalism organizations to participate, and draw a bright line to exclude media propagating disinformation.
The challenge of creating a social media space for journalism is bigger than any single news organization can handle.
From a business perspective, journalism organizations, not third-party social media, would retain analytic data and any advertising revenue. The social media app could be free for any person with a subscription to any member news organization (e.g., a local newspaper, a national magazine of opinion, or digital news site), or with a nominal subscription fee, to provide built-in authentication and help prevent bot accounts. There are also strong global standards for content moderation through the International Fact-Checking Network, which was formed in 2015 and has a nonpartisan code of principles and more than 170 fact-checking groups around the world.
What would such a social media platform cost to create?
Clearly, $44 billion is too much. Bluesky, which has gained favor as an X alternative in recent months, offers a case for comparison. It started internally with just a handful of workers at then-Twitter in 2019. In the past two years, it’s received $23 million in seed funding to get it where it is today.
Bluesky may be the current favorite of many journalists, and has many advantages over other social media platforms, but its worthy purpose to encourage a less toxic space for public conversation does not primarily serve the goals of globally disseminating independent journalism.
Collectively building a nonprofit, cooperative global news-based social media platform would put verified news back in the center of public discourse.
The challenge of creating a social media space for journalism is bigger than any single news organization can handle. There has been talk for several years about Europe having its own social media platform to highlight democracy, diversity, solidarity, and privacy, and to avoid “foreign information manipulations and interference” from platforms based in the U.S. that have fallen into Trump’s power orbit and China-based platforms as well.
But, a nongovernmental platform, with a consortium of democracy-minded news organizations, may be most resistant to nationalisms and authoritarianism. The project could be built on an open-source structure like ActivityPub (the infrastructure behind Mastodon) or the AT Protocol (behind Bluesky), which would give more power to users.
Collectively building a nonprofit, cooperative global news-based social media platform would put verified news back in the center of public discourse. The alternative is the independent press’s passive acceptance of whatever social media ecosystems Silicon Valley plutocrats or authoritarian governments decide to make, which is bad news for a free press.Keep ReadingShow Less
FCC Probe Into NPR, PBS Denounced as 'Attack on the Freedom of the Press'
"The FCC chair is clearly undertaking an effort to bully and intimidate independent journalism, which is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes where democracy is under siege," said one critic.
Jan 31, 2025
U.S. press freedom advocates this week forcefully condemned Republican Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr's investigation into National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service that could lead to stripping them of government funding.
"If they weren't ringing already, alarm bells should be going off loudly," said Tim Richardson, program director for journalism and disinformation at PEN America, in a Thursday statement. "By using its investigatory powers, the FCC chair is clearly undertaking an effort to bully and intimidate independent journalism, which is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes where democracy is under siege."
"The Trump administration is clearly embracing such tactics and putting independent media at risk by undermining accountability of elected leaders and risking a less informed public," Richardson added. "We call on the FCC to dispense with such politically motivated investigations."
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, was similarly critical, saying that "the commission should not bring frivolous investigations into media outlets simply because they do not like their coverage. Investigations like this can chill coverage and threaten the independence of the press, making it harder to hold the government accountable and keep us all informed."
I told @nytimes.com that Carr's claim that NPR and PBS broke sponsorship disclosure rules is an obvious pretext to attack their funding and independence. Carr was appointed to do Trump's censorial bidding. All his moves should be viewed through that lens.This “investigation” is a sham and meant to terrorize NPR and PBS. They have *rigorous* oversight on vetting the “this program brought to you by” statements and literally pages of documentation about it that they give to filmmakers like me. Support your local stations, they’re going to need it.
[image or embed]
— Ariel Waldman (@arielwaldman.com) January 30, 2025 at 2:39 PM
Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron declared that "his seat as FCC chairman is barely warm, but Brendan Carr is already abusing his power and harassing public broadcasters with a sham investigation designed to scare journalists into silence. This is all part of Carr's far-right, Project 2025-inspired agenda."
"This bogus investigation is an attack on the freedom of the press and a bungling attempt to bash public broadcasters and further weaken their resolve to question the extremism, corruption, and cruelty of the Trump administration," Aaron warned. "This unjustified investigation isn't based on any genuine concern about whether there's too much advertising on public media. It's a blatant attempt to undermine independent, rigorous reporting on the Trump administration."
"Carr may not like public media—and that's no surprise given that he isn't a fan of journalism that holds public officials and billionaires accountable. In this, as in so many other areas under his purview, Chairman Carr is far out of step with the American public and their needs," he continued. "Communities all across the country rely on their local public radio and TV stations to provide trustworthy news reporting and a diversity of opinions. In every survey, the American public indicates it wants more support for public and community media, not less."
Aaron added that "in a healthy democracy, we would be investing enough in our public-media system that it wouldn't need to seek any corporate underwriting. Unfortunately, Carr's cronies in Congress and the Big Media barons they serve have instead for decades tried to zero out funding for public media. They have repeatedly failed because millions of viewers and listeners opposed them."
Carr—whom President Donald Trump first appointed to the FCC in 2017 and recently elevated to chair after he contributed to the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025—announced the probe in a Wednesday letter to NPR president and CEO Katherine Maher and PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger.
"I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials," Carr wrote. "I have asked the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, with assistance from the FCC's Media Bureau, to initiate an investigation into the underwriting announcements and related policies of NPR, PBS, and their broadcast member stations."
The chair added:
I will be providing a copy of this letter to relevant members of Congress because I believe this FCC investigation may prove relevant to an ongoing legislative debate. In particular, Congress is actively considering whether to stop requiring taxpayers to subsidize NPR and PBS programming. For my own part, I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS given the changes in the media marketplace since the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
To the extent that these taxpayer dollars are being used to support a for-profit endeavor or an entity that is airing commercial advertisements, then that would further undermine any case for continuing to fund NPR and PBS with taxpayer dollars.
Some federal lawmakers have already responded on social media. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said that "the letter from Chairman Carr announcing a new FCC investigation into NPR and PBS member stations is baseless. He cites no evidence at all. Instead, this investigation is a dangerous attack on public media and local journalism."
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said that "public television and radio are essential for their local communities. The FCC must not be weaponized to intimidate and silence broadcast media. We should be supporting, not undermining, their contributions to journalism and the marketplace of ideas."
I told @nytimes.com that Carr's claim that NPR and PBS broke sponsorship disclosure rules is an obvious pretext to attack their funding and independence. Carr was appointed to do Trump's censorial bidding. All his moves should be viewed through that lens. www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/b...
[image or embed]
— Seth Stern (@seth-stern.bsky.social) January 30, 2025 at 5:27 PM
The two Democratic members of the FCC have also responded critically to Carr's move. Commissioner Anna Gomez said that "this appears to be yet another administration effort to weaponize the power of the FCC. The FCC has no business intimidating and silencing broadcast media."
Commissioner Geoffrey Starks said that "public television and radio stations play a significant role in our media ecosystem.
Any attempt to intimidate these local media outlets is a threat to the free flow of information and the marketplace of ideas. The announcement of this investigation gives me serious concern."
Maher said in statement that "NPR programming and underwriting messaging complies with federal regulations, including the FCC guidelines on underwriting messages for noncommercial educational broadcasters, and member stations are expected to be in compliance as well."
"We are confident any review of our programming and underwriting practices will confirm NPR's adherence to these rules," she added. "We have worked for decades with the FCC in support of noncommercial educational broadcasters who provide essential information, educational programming, and emergency alerts to local communities across the United States."
In a statement to NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik, who reported on the probe, Kerger said that "PBS is proud of the noncommercial educational programming we provide to all Americans through our member stations... We work diligently to comply with the FCC's underwriting regulations and welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that to the commission."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Gift to the Ruling Class': Florida Bill Would Make It Easier for Officials Like DeSantis to Sue Critics
"Floridians should not tolerate their governor's experiments in authoritarianism in their name and at their expense."
Feb 21, 2023
A Florida House Republican introduced legislation Monday that would make it easier for state officials—such as censorship-happy Gov. Ron DeSantis—to sue for defamation, a measure that critics decried as a blatant attack on the freedom of the press and free expression with potentially sweeping implications.
Filed by Florida state Rep. Alex Andrade (R-2), H.B. 951 laments that the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan has "foreclosed many meritorious defamation claims to the detriment of citizens of all walks of life" by placing such claims under the purview of the federal government and establishing a high standard of proof.
As the Oyez Project summarizes, the high court held in the 1964 decision that "to sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate."
Following the introduction of Andrade's bill, Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer, told the outlet Law & Crime that "it's black-letter law that a state cannot constitutionally provide less protection in libel litigation than the First Amendment requires."
"This text does just that, obviously intentionally," said Abrams. "If Governor DeSantis, a Harvard Law graduate, thinks the statute is constitutional, he's forgotten what he was taught. If he's looking for a way to offer the Supreme Court a case in which it might reconsider settled law, who knows. But what's clear is that it is today and tomorrow facially at odds with the First Amendment."
The new bill was filed two weeks after DeSantis, a possible 2024 presidential candidate, held a roundtable purportedly aimed at spotlighting the "defamation practices" of legacy media outlets. While DeSantis has framed his campaign against defamation as an attempt to empower "everyday citizens" against false attacks, free speech advocates warned that, in reality, the governor and his right-wing allies in the Legislature are looking to silence criticism of elected officials like themselves.
"DeSantis continues to make clear his disdain for freedom of speech and the press and to prioritize censoring dissent over governing," said Seth Stern, director of Advocacy for Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and a First Amendment lawyer.
Andrade's bill, Stern argued, "would do nothing for ordinary Floridians but would allow government officials and celebrities to harass and even bankrupt their critics with expensive litigation."
"It would stifle investigative reporting by presuming any statements attributed to anonymous sources to be false despite that (or, given DeSantis' ambitions, maybe because) confidential sources have literally brought down presidents in this country," Stern added. "The Florida legislature should reject this political stunt and Floridians should not tolerate their governor's experiments in authoritarianism in their name and at their expense. The U.S. Congress should safeguard the First Amendment by codifying Sullivan and ensuring that the press and public are protected from politically-motivated defamation lawsuits."
"Unsurprisingly, it's peddled as a bill to protect the little guy. Nothing is further from the truth. It's a gift to the ruling class."
The Florida House measure, just the latest broadside against free expression by the state GOP, specifically urges the U.S. Supreme Court to "reassess" Sullivan, an effort that media lawyer Matthew Schafer described as "part of the right's world war on individual rights, equality, and democracy." (The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the 1964 ruling last year.)
"Unsurprisingly, it's peddled as a bill to protect the little guy," Schafer noted. "Nothing is further from the truth. It's a gift to the ruling class."
Andrade's bill, which resembles a proposal drafted by DeSantis' administration last year, outlines specific restrictions on who can and cannot be considered a "public figure" entitled to pursue defamation claims under the legislation.
The measure states that a person does not qualify as a public figure if their "fame or notoriety arises solely from" defending themselves against an accusation; "granting an interview on a specific topic"; "public employment, other than elected office or appointment by an elected official"; or "a video, an image, or a statement uploaded on the Internet that has reached a broad audience."
In a column last week, The Washington Post's Erik Wemple cautioned that DeSantis' attempts to target Sullivan could pose "a far greater threat to U.S. media" than former President Donald Trump's ultimately empty pledge to "open up" libel laws.
During his roundtable event earlier this month, "DeSantis, an ace practitioner of GOP media-bashing rhetoric, showed why some critics view him as a more dangerous embodiment of Trump's two-bit authoritarianism," Wemple wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular