Re:filtered #19: No saints needed

Welcome to the 19th edition of my monthly newsletter on civic media opportunities in a moment of systemic disruption.

Earlier this week, an investigative editor I greatly admire asked me to help some struggling newsrooms. Knowing my writing about journalism's utility, they added: "but we don't need any of that Internews bullshit." That stuck with me.

I get it. Watch the journalism support space long enough and you'll see it adopt whatever buzzwords keep the money flowing. One probably has to be a narcissist or naive or both to not end up cynical at some point.

Case in point: So many (not all) revenue and news creator/influencer programs right now are charity redistribution schemes with the en vogue branding. Diversified donor pool, similar cut, same dynamics; but to some degree, that's fine? At least, there's some progress in thinking.

It‘s so tricky to navigate all this because the industry holds multiple truths: we spend millions on hot air, are hopelessly cliquish, witness and applaud performative group-think, are often consumed by a scarcity mindset, but still somehow… there are many acts of journalism that create genuine social value.

How and to what extent? I’m not always sure. We're all figuring it out in all our somewhat flawed ways while trying to keep some conceptualized form of a craft of seeking and telling new information alive in information spaces that also exist without us.

I can't think of anyone in this space who hasn't chased a silly trend or worked on something that proved pointless. There are no saints here, but luckily none are needed. If we can accept that we'll make mistakes, that we will inevitably fall for some hype, let's just be honest about it and clear about our intent, and move on with greater clarity. That may also help deflate the hype bubbles a bit.

I'm excited I now work with a smart team at Gazzetta that is thinking about various aspects of relevance. The work may not fit into the traditional boxes, but it was never built to fit in. We are not a newsroom, but that doesn’t make any of our work “bullshit”.

Our work helps people be more useful. We make newsrooms, some tech and some funding for both more effective than they’d be without us.

I am glad there’s already a discussion on what an evolving taxonomy of meaningful services in the information space could look like beyond reporting (planning to write about it next month after sorting my thoughts for a presentation in two weeks).

If you catch me dressing projects up in buzzwords, do let me know. I may not realize it, or may not do a good job at articulating the social utility we see. My intent in all is the same, tackling journalism's relevance crisis.

In that spirit, I'm sharing two new initiatives – a training program and a research service – plus a job opportunity.

We're seeking a researcher to help us understand how information moves through communities where traditional research fails. It's concrete work with immediate application.

Thank you to everyone who's applied or shared this opening so far. We're reviewing applications and I will respond to each one, though it may take time.

The Newsroom Pivot Program

I'm very excited that we've launched and just concluded the application period for the Newsroom Pivot Program with the JxFund and the Center for Sustainable Media. 

The program brings together up to seven exiled newsrooms for four months of experimentation, from testing value propositions to exploring alternative revenue streams. Practical work on:

• Revenue models that don't depend on grant cycles
• Audience research beyond vanity metrics  
• Product development rooted in real needs and problems
• Internet freedom tech for when platforms fail

Building sustainable journalism ventures in the context of autocracy is the toughest challenge in media. But that's exactly why it I care and focus so much on this, it forces me to be most clear-eyed.

I'm also excited that we're creating space for honest peer learning. No pretending everything's fine, but people committed to discovering what genuine service could look like in their specific contexts, and in that, share mutual inspiration.

The response has been encouraging with applications from Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Russia, and Syria. 

The Audience Help Desk 

Madison Karas - who joined the Gazzetta team leading Service Design!! - and I are launching an informal help desk as a confidential advisory service for anyone struggling with questions about relevance and utility in their journalistic work.

We offer free, one-hour brainstorming sessions on everything related to audience work, from practical to existential.

Whether you're an executive wondering where to prioritize, a practitioner preparing a survey or an interview, a researcher struggling to get buy-in, or an editor questioning why you're doing all this, we're here to help.

We want to help brainstorm on the practical stuff we work on and think about every day – choosing research tools, designing surveys, facilitating stakeholder conversations. We also want to be supportive as existential questions about the purpose of journalism become more widespread.

No consulting contracts, no introductions or connections, no set up required. Confidential.

Beta starts in August to give it a try, learn and iterate, and we’re aiming to open this more broadly in October.

Why we're building this

This idea emerged from conversations at the Lenfest News Philanthropy Summit earlier this year (Thank you, Diana, Yossi, Tristan, and Sean), where we explored how journalism can deliver and articulate its value in a landscape of threats and change.

Since then, we published thoughts on journalism as a service with Lenfest. We argued that theory of change narratives often get reduced to passive recipient/messaging expectations and that, instead, journalism should be measured by how it helps people navigate their lives on their own terms.

This also reduces the likelihood of overly abstract metrics or institutional preservation focus and stasis.

The argument has struck some nerve. We received a good amount of optimistic and critical feedback about the possibilities of service as a guiding framework.

I wanted to address here some recurring critiques of that article that have revealed deeper disagreements about what journalism is for:

"Service journalism is just explainers and how-tos. We also need investigations and podcasts." 

It’s more about function than form.

Service focuses on the value received and utility gained from journalism, whichever way that might be delivered. It’s not just practical guides about insurance or taxes.

An investigation into hospital mortality rates serves patients choosing where to seek care. A profile of a teacher succeeding despite systemic failure shows what's possible and inspires others. Long-form reporting on local government corruption helps citizens understand why their tax dollars disappear.

The service – giving people agency to make better decisions about their lives – can be implicit. It doesn't require a sidebar titled "What You Can Do." Whatever shape the value add may take, service keeps us focused on ensuring it’s a part of our work, rather than making assumptions.

"Journalism is inherently good and doesn't need to justify itself through utility." 

This romantic view ignores how pre-selection works. Who gets to practice journalism? Who decides what stories matter? Without anchoring journalism in actual utility to actual people, we end up with a system that primarily serves those with the connections and socialization to enter newsrooms (or in different but also questionable ways: algorithmic platform feeds), and don’t feel a need to question our work.

Saying journalism is inherently good is like saying any human activity is inherently good. My terrible baking isn't valuable just because I call myself a baker. It also omits us from considering how we could be creating harm through our work or utilizing our resources better. (My cake could actually make people sick and be a waste of all the ingredients I bought. It's not valuable just because it exists.)

"Fox News provides a service too, why should we adopt a framework that bad actors can hijack?"

Yes, Fox serves its audience. It is validating worldviews, providing talking points, offering belonging. I personally believe that they do this in bad faith and cause harm to individuals and society. But they've identified real needs: people want to feel heard, to understand their world, to belong somewhere.

The answer isn't to cede service to bad actors. It's to compete with clarity and integrity. If people seek out outlets like Fox for emotional resonance, we need to provide better clarity grounded in their reality. If they want community, we can build spaces that don't require abandoning critical thinking.

Understanding demand isn't capitulation, it's prerequisite of strategy. Dismissing why people consume harmful media guarantees they'll keep consuming it. Understanding those needs enables us to meet them without manipulation.

"Focusing on service will be so boring, it will further limit international philanthropic funding."

I hear this mostly in the international media support space, where exile media are funded by foreign policy instruments with geopolitical objectives.

I'd say this: If your funding depends on positioning journalism as geopolitical messaging divorced from community needs because that's the only way it can get funding, then yes, maybe it should really end.

This model has led to way too much subservience to the whims of political operators, expectations of propaganda, and, again, ineffectiveness. 

Journalism can advance democratic values and human rights precisely by serving real information needs, not by broadcasting abstract principles. When we help people navigate their shared lived experiences in healthcare, education, or economic systems, we're building the informed citizenry that any community of people requires.

That has tangible effects that funders who are able to critically reflect on the past decade should be able to get behind. The values alignment happens through service, not despite it.

"Everything is falling apart. This is the wrong time to rethink our approach and risk failing." 

The argument reminds me of establishment politicians unable to adapt while losing ground with "firewall" arguments.

If our current approach was working, we wouldn't be watching newsroom after newsroom fold. The crisis demands experimentation, not doubling down on what already failed.

As autocracy advances globally, clinging to failed models isn't principled resistance – it's surrender.

To discuss this further, we're hosting a call August 21 to discuss this further as part of the Lenfest Audience Community of Practice, then sharing findings in September in a wider call.

If you're also tired of dealing with generic "news" without purpose or eager to explore how to become more useful to people, we really want to hear and learn from you.

If you’d like to support us in building the Audience Help Desk, either financially, or to get added to our roster of audience experts, or if you want to get added to the queue of folks who have reached out for a first call, email us at helpdesk@gazzetta.xyz.

Different projects, same root

These are all separate initiatives addressing different aspects of the same relevance crisis.

The training program helps exiled newsrooms experiment with peer learning. The Help Desk supports individual journalists in their audience work.

Both reject the comfortable fiction that journalism matters simply because we say it does. It doesn't, not on paper or on short waves, not on algorithmic feeds, messaging chats or AI chatbots.

Both projects demand we start with real problems real people face. They… we all… have so many.

For the past year, with support from the Open Technology Fund, we've been experimenting with ways to operate in highly distorted information ecosystems.

We've found that these systems force us to think very, very clearly and pragmatically about information utility, and let go of comforting past narratives.

We've also found that there's a lot more opportunity than most realize, if we're willing to let go of what isn't working.

Looking back

I’d just like to share the handout of our SRCCON workshop last month in beautiful Minneapolis. It was a discussion among journalists and technologists on better collaboration around safety.

Deutsche Welle kindly hosted me at their Global Media Forum in Bonn for a panel on how to beat back digital authoritarianism (recording).

Thank you, Oliver, Ingo, Ester, Patrick. It was also so nice to see some friends, like Beata, Feri, Sebastian, Yasmina, Ellen, and Arzu.

I tried to make the same case in both venues: publishers have a duty of care and need to think much more carefully about protecting their audiences from surveillance and repercussions of consuming the information they provide, even at the cost of lower quantitative measurability of impact, and at the cost of lower measured reach. (But there are long-term benefits!)

Looking ahead

At HOPE_16, I'll share some exciting research on how journalists and technologists could actually collaborate, and hopefully recruit some new partners in this effort. If you’re going, let me know! I’d also love your feedback on my presentation if you’re willing to review next week.  

At the Protocols for Publishers gathering later in August, I'll be learning about potential AT Protocol and Model Context Protocol use cases for media. (Thank you, Chad!)

I've been thinking a lot about new top of funnel opportunities emerging as the disruption there is increasingly becoming a consensus fact. Key recent related quote on this: "Traffic was always a poor proxy for value."  

Finally, the program has been released for the NPA Summit in Chicago, Oct. 23-24. If you're working in the intersection of journalism and technology, this is the gathering you don't want to miss this year. (I'll be contributing to two otherwise really smart panels – one on media strategy under autocracy and one on AI in audience research.)

The chance to build better information services is real. We just have to keep the craft and let go of some boxes and labels that don't serve us anymore, and be a little bit more reflective on what really is 🐂💩.

Until next month!