Old store in Nelson County, Va., a focus on Nick Mathews’ new book, “Deserted.” Photo (cc) 2010 by Ted Hodges.
Local news is in crisis everywhere, but the challenge is more daunting in rural areas than it is in cities or affluent suburbs.
Consider the Storm Lake Times Pilot, which serves a farming community in Iowa. As co-founder Art Cullen explains in the 2021 documentary “Storm Lake,” the rise of agribusiness wiped out much of the local advertising that had once sustained the paper while the spreading tentacles of social media grabbed another large chunk. When Cullen appeared that same year on the podcast that Ellen Clegg and I host, “What Works: The Future of Local News,” he told us that both he and his brother, John Cullen, were living on Social Security rather than take a salary out of their precarious newspaper revenues.
The Storm Lake Times Pilot is emblematic of a national phenomenon. In 2025, the Local News Initiative at Northwestern’s Medill School found that 213 U.S. counties lacked a local news outlet, and that nearly 80% of those counties were in rural areas.
The digital version was posted Tuesday by CommonWealth, but there’s more to come, including a print version and explainer videos on social. (Note: I’m a member of CommonWealth’s editorial advisory board.)
Voters could find the ballot especially confusing this year because there are nine questions they will be asked to sift through, including public records reform, a switch to all-party primaries and the repeal of marijuana legalization. The project comprises an overview, explainers, data visualizations, pro and con mini-essays and links to past coverage.
Like all of CommonWealth’s journalism, the ballot-questions project is freely available for republication either in print or online. Or local news outlets could just link to it in a prominent place on their homepages.
Government by ballot question isn’t ideal, but legislative inaction has made it an increasingly important outlet for voter frustration. Don’t go into the ballot booth without knowing what you’re voting for.
Click here or on image to watch “Beat the Press” on Contrarian Boston.
“60 Minutes” made its fall debut on Sunday, and so did “Beat the Press with Emily Rooney.” We watched to see what clues we could discern over how executive producer Nick Bilton and CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss would remake the venerable newsmagazine program, which first slipped into view 58 years ago.
I don’t want to speak for my fellow panelists, but I thought it was solid if unspectacular. The first segment, on the secretive rescue of an American pilot from Iran, couldn’t have happened without the active cooperation of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. But since when have the networks not engaged in access journalism? The story, hosted by Norah O’Donnell, was harrowing, even if my friend Danny Schechter would have derided it as “militainment” if he were still with us.
The New York Times has published a comprehensive examination of Donald Trump’s attempts to stifle freedom of speech and of the press. Written by Jim Rutenberg and Maggie Haberman, it’s cast as a “news analysis” so they can offer some judgments. I’m guessing that it will be on the front page of the Sunday print edition.
There’s nothing in the story that hasn’t been previously reported, but it’s all here — from Trump’s bogus lawsuits against ABC and CBS to his Justice Department’s failed attempt to subpoena Times reporters; from an FBI raid on the home of a Washington Post reporter to FCC chair Brendan Carr’s threats against broadcast networks. Rutenberg and Haberman write:
Almost 20 months into Mr. Trump’s second term, his long-running media clashes have grown into a sweeping campaign to control speech in America that stands out for applying so many levers, so fast, all at once.
Although First Amendment protections remain reasonably strong, there are soft spots, and Trump is exploiting them. For instance, the right of journalists to protect confidential sources is extremely limited, especially in the federal courts, and hauling reporters into court sends a message. It’s nearly impossible to win a frivolous libel suit, but Trump has used such suits to extract settlements from media corporations that need favors. Broadcast may be in its death throes, but it remains the one part of the media that is subject to government regulation, thus opening it up to Carr’s depredations.
The Times roundup is a must-read for anyone who cares about the role of a free and independent press in a democratic society. And know this: If Democrats take back one or both branches of Congress this November, Trump’s behavior is only going to become more unhinged and authoritarian.
I’m passing along this email I received from PR and corporate communications at USA Today Co. in response to my post about the newspaper chain’s deal with AI surveillance company Palantir, which has drawn protests from union employees.
Hi Dan –
I saw your piece published yesterday regarding USA TODAY Co.’s relationship with Palantir and wanted to reach out. Was there a reason you chose not to contact us for comment before publication?
In particular, I noticed the line: “From perusing the coverage, I’m not entirely sure exactly what Palantir will be doing for USAT.” Given that uncertainty, I was surprised that no effort was made to seek clarification from the company directly.
This initiative supports our broader strategy to strengthen audience relationships and create greater value across our business. In this work with Palantir, we’re leveraging AI to create a unified intelligence layer to serve our expansive audience better, deepen engagement, and drive growth across subscriptions, advertising, and e-commerce.
Our editorial decisions remain independent and are guided by our longstanding journalistic standards and ethics policies.
Please note, USA TODAY Co. complies with applicable data protection and privacy laws and maintains strong standards for data security and governance. We require this of our vendors and partners as well, reflecting our belief that safeguarding protected personal information is essential to our business and the audiences we serve.
Sharing a quote below addressing the open letter from the Guild/unionized employees which you can attribute to Amy Garrard, Vice President of Labor Relations, USA TODAY Co.:
“We respect that employees have a range of perspectives. Our agreement with Palantir is a business decision focused on strengthening how we connect and better serve audiences, advertisers, and subscribers. Our data remains protected under our existing privacy commitments, contractual safeguards, and applicable laws. As always, our journalism remains fully independent.”
Firefighters at Ground Zero on Sept. 19, 2001. Photo (cc) by Loco Steve.
Twenty-five years ago today, I stayed up most of the night writing a long essay for The Boston Phoenix called “The End of Decadence,” a first reaction to the terrorist attacks that had just taken place. I recalled what that was like for GBH News on the 20th anniversary. Below is my original Phoenix piece, brought to you by the Northeastern University Library, which now holds the copyright.
Sadly, what stands out in rereading this is that the media did not fulfill our hopes that they would hold the powerful to account. It was Chris Matthews, of all people, who was the most prescient in the moment, telling his viewers, “The problem with retaliation is that you play into your enemy’s hands. You radicalize your enemies. Retaliation is part of the terrorism.” Within a year, news organizations were cheering on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as they built their recklessly flawed case for going to war in Iraq, a foreign-policy disaster we are living with to this day.
The end of decadence
Can the media — and the rest of us — adjust to a frightening new world?
By Dan Kennedy | The Boston Phoenix | Sept. 13, 2001
It’s over. The easiest, sleaziest, richest, most meaningless decade we’ve yet known has come to an end, buried beneath the rubble and ashes and dust of the World Trade Center.
Officially, the 1990s died at 8:45 a.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, when American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the north tower — thereby setting off a day of horror unlike anything we have seen before. In truth, though, the patient had been sick for some time.
BU’s College of Communication. Photo (cc) 2012 by mikebtrinh.
Boston Globe editor Brian McGrory will not be returning to Boston University. McGrory, who took a two-year leave of absence as chair of BU’s journalism department in December 2025, told the Globe’s staff earlier this morning that he has resigned from academia.
McGrory was the Globe’s editor from 2012 to 2023 and was replaced by Nancy Barnes, a veteran news executive who’d worked in high-level jobs at NPR, the Houston Chronicle and other stops. Barnes left abruptly in late 2025, paving the way for McGrory’s return. Although McGrory’s second stint as editor was initially described as temporary, it soon became apparent that he was back for an extended stay.
Here’s the text of his note to the newsroom, forwarded to me by people I trust.
Hey all,
In the spirit of transparency, I’m sharing with you that I resigned this week from the faculty of Boston University, which obviously ends my leave of absence there. BU administrators had kindly granted me a two-year leave, with one very reasonable requirement. They asked that I let them know this September whether I planned to return in January, 2028.
I truly valued my time at BU, so much that I don’t want to commit to a return date that I may not be able to keep. I also don’t want to continue our work at the Globe with an immovable deadline hanging over my head. After discussions with Dhiraj [Nayar, president of Boston Globe Media], Linda [Henry, Globe Media’s CEO], and Mariette DiChristina, the dean at BU, this seemed to be the right thing to do.
It feels to me, and I hope to many of you, that we are making tremendous progress, consistently, sometimes relentlessly, putting out truly interesting and important journalism. I couldn’t be more delighted to be a part of it all.
None of this should signal that I’m looking to overstay my welcome. In terms of how long I’ll be in this role, I’m aiming for the day before you start wondering why I’m still here.
I’m happy to answer any questions that you have. Just drop by.
ICE agents on the streets of Los Angeles in 2025. Public domain photo by DHSgov.
For USA Today Co., our largest newspaper chain, there is no bottom. Formerly known as Gannett, the publicly traded company is reviled in communities across the country for slashing its newsrooms. Now the chain is embarking on a venture that is sleazy even by its own low standards: a deal with Palantir, the infamous AI surveillance firm.
The optics of partnering with Palantir — a company that provides military targeting software and wields a vast surveillance panopticon — are undeniably touchy. It’s worked hand in hand with ICE, secretly providing the agency a tool that scours citizen’s Medicaid and other government data to create a map of people it could potentially deport. It also supplies the Israeli military with an AI battlefield decision-making tool that can analyze enemy targets for elimination.
Now USAT’s employees are fighting back. Natalie Korach, reporting for the media-news site Status, notes that workers (sub. req.) at the company’s 31 unionized publications have signed a statement urging executives to “immediately end its partnership with the company,” citing Palantir’s work with the federal government. As Jon Schleuss, president of The NewsGuild-Communication Workers of America, told Korach, “It’s a company that is actively involved in highly sensitive matters that journalists are covering. Having that company now on the inside of the systems that the journalists use to then write about that company, I think is where the problem is.”
On top of that, Korach reports that USAT is embarking on yet another round of layoffs and buyouts.
From perusing the coverage, I’m not entirely sure exactly what Palantir will be doing for USAT. Korach writes that Schleuss says readers don’t want AI news content, but that doesn’t seem to be what this is about. Rather, chair and CEO Mike Reed told investors that Palantir will build an “intelligence layer” to “strengthen how we collect, connect and activate audience data to drive more effective and faster monetization across our platform,” according to an account in Nieman Lab.
Then again, as Darren Zullo reported for Boston.com last year, USAT is already using AI to generate stories. Because of course it is.
If you’re wondering why a lone juror who may have ignored the law about reasonable doubt could lead to a mistrial in the case of Lindsay Clancy, a landmark verdict that advanced press freedom 290 years ago provides some important background.
Sue O’Connell of NBC 10 Boston interviewed three jurors after a mistrial was declared. The foreperson, Roni Carlson, said the holdout “admitted he had reasonable doubt” but told his fellow jurors, “I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.”
Labor Day is behind us, summer is starting to wane and it’s time to start thinking about what media news will keep us up at night this fall. From the standpoint of my research interests and my personal passions, the ongoing crisis in local journalism looms as the most important storyline.
In terms of immediate threats and what it means for our democracy, though, I would identify the possibility (if not the likelihood) that Paramount will absorb CNN into its empire as the story we need to keep the closest eye on.
The New York Times has published a 
