The Case for Good Journalism in Today’s World

“Journalism is dead.” 

You've heard it. You've probably said it. 

And honestly, the evidence seems pretty hard to argue with. 

Newsrooms gutted, trust in tatters, cable news turned into a gladiator sport.  

But what if that story, the one we keep telling about journalism, is itself bad journalism? 

Neil Brown thinks so. He’s a 40-year editor and president of the Poynter Institute, and he is, by his own admission, an optimist about the media. When he tells you why, it might genuinely change how you think about where good information comes from.

Listen For:

04:09 What Makes Someone a Journalist Instead of Just a Publisher?

06:22 Why Does Democracy Need Real Journalism?

12:24 Can Local Journalism Rebuild Public Trust?

13:03 How Did the Baltimore Banner Turn Bus Data Into Accountability?

17:30 What Responsibility Does the Audience Have in Fighting Misinformation?

Guest: Neil Brown, Chairman of the Board and President at Poynter Institute for Media Studies

Website | LinkedIn | Facebook | TikTok | BlueSky | Threads | YouTube 

Doug Downs

Substack | Website | LinkedIn

Are you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.

Apply to be a guest on the podcast

Connect with us

LinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | Pinterest

Transcript

Lady Emily (00:00):
In 1887, a 23 year old woman with no money had no job and spent her nights practicing looking crazy in the mirror. What happened next changed journalism forever.

Doug Downs (00:17):
She had been turned away by every newspaper in New York. Four months of rejections. She was nearly broke. So she walked into Joseph Pulitzer's office at the New York World and refused to leave until somebody listened. They gave her an assignment. Go to Blackwell's Island, get yourself committed to the women's lunatic asylum, find out what's happening inside. She stayed up all night to make her eyes look hollow. She practiced her stare in the mirror. Within days, she was arrested, examined by a judge and three doctors, and then sent by ferry across the East River. She was 23 years old.

(00:59):
Once inside, she stopped pretending. She acted completely sane. The staff took this as further proof that she was mad. She ate spoiled food. She sat on hard benches in the cold. She watched women who were entirely sane get committed simply because they were poor or foreign or inconvenient to someone. After 10 days, the New York World got her out. Her story ran across two full pages. The city's asylum budget was increased by nearly a million dollars, a lot of money at the time. Blackwell's Island closed seven years later. Now, she didn't have a title. She didn't have tenure. She did have a name, Elizabeth Cochran. Although you might know her better as Nellie Bly. She had a mirror, a mission, and a willingness to go where no one else would go. That is journalism. Today on Stories and Strategies, maybe we should stop mourning what journalism has become and get back to doing it the way it was meant to be.

(02:19):
My name is Doug Downs. My guest this week is Neil Brown, joining today from St. Petersburg, Florida. Hey, Neil.

Neil Brown (02:25):
Hi, Doug. How are you?

Doug Downs (02:26):
I'm good. I'm a Jays fan. Are you a Rays fan? This is baseball stuff here.

Neil Brown (02:31):
I'm a Rays fan as my second favorite team. I grew up in Chicago, so I'm a die hard Cubs fan.

Doug Downs (02:35):
Hey, hey. I've not been to Yankee Stadium or Fenway Park, but Wrigley I have, and it's the most beautiful park I've ever been to.

Neil Brown (02:47):
Yeah, it's just such a great experience. That's the way baseball ought to be, right? Day games too, by the way.

Doug Downs (02:51):
Day games, yes. Back in the day. Neil, you are one of the most respected editors in American journalism, president of the Poynter Institute, former editor of the Tampa Bay Times, where your newsroom won six Pulitzer Prizes, nine years for you on the Pulitzer Prize Board. As a former journalist, it is genuinely an honor to have you on the podcast.

Neil Brown (03:14):
Well, I appreciate that. And by the way, I'm going to tell you right now, once a journalist, always a journalist. That former thing isn't going to cut it, pal.

Doug Downs (03:21):
You know what? You're right because you and I were chatting. This is one of those weird episodes where I think you're wrong and I can't see any way that you're right, and I don't see any way for you to convince me even slightly that you're right. And by God, Neil, I hope you're right. You're an optimist.

Neil Brown (03:41):
Well, you just proved you are journalism. You just proved you are still a journalist because it's a healthy skepticism. It's in my blood. Skepticism, even cynicism maybe. And as I said, I think we'll find a lot of agreement as we both go after what we think is important.

Doug Downs (03:57):
Okay. Let's start with what you define as journalism. Just because I know we're both going to talk about optimism for journalism. What do you mean when you say journalism in 2026?

Neil Brown (04:09):
Okay. So there are a few fundamentals of journalism that I think we should all agree on. People used to hold up their phone and say, "Well, in this day and age, everybody can be a publisher." But the truth is, in this day and age, not everybody can be a journalist. You can publish, you can disseminate, you can distribute. But journalism involves rigorous reporting, some measure certainly of independence, not exclusively anymore, but some measure of independence, a lot of transparency about where the information is coming from, and a way for the audience to get information that it finds relevant. I'll even use the word pertinent to its daily life. So one of the things that I think has changed about journalism. So I think some of those things are fundamentals that have been true for decades and decades and decades. I think what we're all responding to right now is that it's now in a lot of different forms.

(05:11):
Some forms are new and uncomfortable. Everything is obviously, I'm speaking from the States, but maybe it's true in Canada too, but it's very polarized. And so the audience is sort of a bigger factor than it was where it used to be journalists find the information, send it down to you. Well, now it's a much more level playing field. And my view of it is that doesn't mean that journalism is suffering. It means it needs to adapt and in many cases is adapting, albeit in some cases it's not.

Doug Downs (05:46):
And let's talk about the need for that real journalism that you just described. Number one, as humans, we need access to information so that we can perform critical thought.

Neil Brown (05:58):
Correct.

Doug Downs (05:58):
That we can make our own decisions with information and the right amount of context. Whatever the right amount is, is where we get in trouble. Secondly, I would suggest for a functioning democracy, you cannot have one without real journalism. Would you agree? And do we see this today?

Neil Brown (06:22):
I agree fully. At Poynter, Poynter was founded by a guy named Nelson Poynter who believed so deeply in independent local journalism so people could get the very information for the reasons you just described, basically for self government. We need information so we can make decisions. Whatever that might be. What's more is that it's really complex out there, whether it's health or medicine or education, and you need some sources of information so you can guide yourselves, your families, make your decisions, even consumer based decisions, honestly. So we have complete agreement on the value and the importance, basically to a democratic society and frankly to improve the quality of our lives day to day.

I think the question is, or the narrative that we talk about, is the fact that it's no longer here in the States. Everybody still says, "Well, I miss the days when Walter Cronkite could be trusted and tell you what's going on."

(07:27):
Well, first of all, it's a pet peeve. Let's come up with some fresher examples. Walter Cronkite himself has been dead for 25 years. So don't get me wrong, legend of the game. But what that anecdote reflects to me is there's a bit of trying to hold on to a status quo that the rest of at least American culture and politics has moved on from. And rather than say we've lost something, though it's different, we need to say it's different, not necessarily lost. And if you do that, I can show you lots of examples where in local communities and even in some national worlds, certainly at the state level, there are all kinds of people doing independent reporting, passing on the information in forms that the audience wants and that they're guided by.

Where we certainly come together on a concern is there's also lots of mischief and misinformation and polarized messages that are being used for personal profit, personal gain, and they are confusing that landscape. They're confusing the audience. And so that's where there definitely is some work to be done. Parts of it are absolutely broken.

(08:43):
I don't mean to be naive about any of it. I just don't think that's the only story. I think it's both.

Doug Downs (08:49):
It seems to me that with the multiple channels of access to information that I now have, as well as the algorithm, which gives me what I apparently want whether I know it or not, that as a consumer of news consciously or subconsciously, I choose the news that agrees with the perspective I already have, that makes me smart, that makes my world make sense. And it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that journalists over a long period of evolutionary time have simply adjusted to that. That now they don't just report. They're trying to provide context and influence because they want a certain target audience that will agree with that perspective. That's how it feels to me. I see it from Fox here in Canada. I see it from CBC, which my tax dollars pay for, and it bothers me a lot.

Neil Brown (09:45):
No. So I go back to the notion that is absolutely accurate, Doug. It's just not the whole story.

Neil Brown (09:45):
No. So I go back to the notion that is absolutely accurate, Doug. It's just not the whole story. And the rest of the story isn't necessarily in collision. It's just much more of a menu of things. So there's no doubt that the economic challenges that journalism has faced, particularly the collapse of the advertising model. The advertising used to throw off so much money we could do all these important things, including sports coverage, by the way, which never has paid for itself.

(10:15):
And we all love sports. Well, a lot of us love sports coverage. So the dollars were there to sort of put ourselves apart from the dollars. In other words, advertisers wanted to reach people for their consumer behavior. They threw off enough dollars that we could then do the journalistic mission. Fox is an example. MSNBC here in the States is an example. That has changed where very specific agendas drive the push of information and economically are very, very strong. And so what you've seen is, yes, in the spirit of adaptation, and I suggested we need more adaptation, but in the spirit of adaptation, a lot of journalists have tried to see if they can win you over by showing our own influence

(11:02):
or by confusing context with bias, whatever it may be. Part of that's human. Part of that's just trying to respond to the audience. There's a bit of flailing. I acknowledge all of that. But I think that at least what I would say is if you can get things down to the more organic local level, some of that goes away because it's not, to use a state situation, it's not just red versus blue, Fox versus CNN. At the local level, it's like I need to know, am I getting recycling or am I not? I need to know here in Florida, there's a bill where they may decide that vaccinations aren't required for school kids. That's a political decision. People can have their own views. I just need to know as a consumer, should I still get my kid a measles vaccine or should I not? Where can I go?

(11:56):
And so journalism still has that role to play of pertinence and relevance that gets beyond, or is at least separate from, this political question.

Doug Downs (12:07):
I think I heard that grassroots journalism, small town, I hate local journalism, local community journalism, is the way trust is going to build. It's not going to come from the top down. It will come from the bottom up. Who's doing, in your mind, a good job in that context?

Neil Brown (12:24):
Yep. So I'm going to cite a number of examples, but first I will say your premise at the beginning is legit. A lot of big sources that we counted on locally have had that economic problem and they're kind of flailing. They're pandering or they don't know, or they're cutting back. Here in the States, there's a chain, Gannett, which owns more papers than any in the country. So to cut costs, they're going with less local coverage and more coverage that goes across regions. I think it will not succeed. But anyway, I don't want to just pick on them.

Doug Downs (13:01):
But you're still an optimist here.

Neil Brown (13:03):
An optimist. I'll give you an example. I'll give you three quick examples. Today, the Poynter Institute will announce the Poynter Journalism Prize winners, and we do a national contest. It's not at the level of the Pulitzers, but we like to think of ourselves as the Golden Globes, sort of right below there, recognizing really good work. It will honor, among other news organizations, some big national ones, but we'll also honor the Baltimore Banner, which has done a fabulous investigation. It only started three or four years ago. They created a data tool that showed that in Baltimore, Baltimore does not provide bus service to students above fifth grade. So if you can't afford to get a ride somehow, you've got to take the city bus. Well, guess what? The city buses can't seem to get kids to school on time. And so a lot of kids who have to take a bus because they can't afford private rides are getting to classes late.

(14:03):
Their grades are worse. They're missing school and they're not graduating at the same levels. Now that's something that I think is eventually going to change some

Doug Downs (14:12):
Policy. That's good journalism.

Neil Brown (14:13):
Baltimore. It's good journalism. It's about education. I didn't say blue or red. I didn't say anything. We just have to figure this out. These kids have got to get to school.

Okay, that's one example. In Eugene, Oregon, there are some former journalists led by one guy in particular who have started something called Stumptown Savings. Basically, unlike Yelp or some of the other crowdsourcing platforms where you put reviews and things on restaurants, that's all fine too, but these folks go from grocery store to grocery store and track deals and send you information about deals in various grocery stores around the local area so that you can do better in shopping for your groceries and deal with the affordability crisis.

Again, it's local. They say who they are. They're not taking any money from the local craft brewery to buy that beer or this.

(15:11):
The other day they did a great rating of all the tortilla chips that are made in the area. Here are the ones that are our favorite and here is what they cost. That's actually journalism that's relevant. Yes. Is it making the world a better place like Baltimore? Well, I'd argue if you save me some dollars in my grocery store, I'll find some value.

(15:26):
In Oakland, California, there's an organization that's now been around for about 10 years, a staff now of 18. It's called El Tímpano. It is a digital news website and it serves primarily Latino and Mayan immigrant communities who live in that area. It put out a story just a few weeks ago saying, oh my God, there are a lot of folks who have immigrated to the Oakland area and they are seeing on the ground these fabulous looking mushrooms that remind them of the mushrooms where they came from in Guatemala. You cook them up and it's this terrific delicacy and the audience loves it.

Turns out though, this version in Oakland is poisonous. Those are toxic.

Now these are people who don't speak English. They speak Mayan indigenous languages. They need a source of information they trust. Those mushrooms aren't what you think they are.

(16:29):
Now those three examples are also journalism. They didn't come from the Tampa Bay Times or the Philadelphia Inquirer. They came from alternative sources, but not fringe or extreme. It's about service. It's relevant.

Now meanwhile, El Tímpano or the Minneapolis Star Tribune, they're also going to cover ICE raids in your community. There are journalists all over the country trying to figure out this guy who somehow got White House correspondence onto the internet. Where's he from and what's his agenda? Turns out he may be a loner.

So all of these things say there's still a lot of journalism out there. And don't be fooled only by, I shouldn't say fooled, that's harsh, don't lament only the shout fest on cable as a sign of what's happened to journalism.

Day in and day out, your very show, your audience cares about information. Otherwise they wouldn't listen to this podcast.

(17:30):
So all I'm saying is round out the story. It's not like we should ignore these things where there's intentional misinformation, where people are fooled, where AI makes the speed of this incredible.

And by the way, I'll add, the audience has some responsibility to be an informed consumer. A big responsibility.

Doug Downs (17:59):
I'm talking about the audience.

Neil Brown (17:59):
Yeah, a big responsibility. You care about democracy. I'm not trying to let you off the hook. I'm just saying the journalists shouldn't blame the audience and the audience shouldn't always be blaming the journalists.

Doug Downs (17:59):
I love the examples. I adore the examples. How do we grow this so that that attitude plays out on the bigger stage? And is it possible for journalists or publishers, editors, and news directors to accomplish that, or is that really up to us?

Neil Brown (18:18):
Yeah, I think it's got to be in tandem. Here's the thing about the audience and about the journalists, and this is what I've been trying to get at. It's definitely on us to provide work of value and distinction. If it's a commodity, if it's not worth your time.

I mean, this is the paradox of the time we live in, which is the irony. I mentioned the Cronkite example earlier. Now there are so many choices. Well, that actually should be good for the audience, right? You have lots and lots of choices.

So it's up to us who are providing the material for those choices. What is helpful? What is distinctive? How do I make it accessible?

You talked about algorithms. Certainly there are creators and influencers on TikTok and Instagram. Their forms of work are really interesting. They're funny. They say they value my time. In many cases, they tell me where the information came from.

All right. So on the good ones, then it's on the audience to say, all right, we buy that you'll have four or five different sources in a day. You'll have your NPR radio broadcast. You'll have something off an Instagram Reel. You'll maybe still subscribe to a print newspaper. And maybe you'll hit any of those over the course of the week.

(20:07):
I think we have to get past this notion that it's an either or. You either do this or you do that. So if the audience is willing, and I know we all have subscription fatigue, but to either throw some money toward a subscription or a membership or something, if you care about your community and your society, throw in with that. And in return, you'll get value back.

So that's the partnership. I think it's going to be a long game, Doug. I think we're going to have to win them over almost one customer at a time. And that's okay. But you've got to stick with it for the long game.

Doug Downs (20:22):
Absolutely love it. And Neil, to quote a friend of ours, that's the way it is. I really appreciate your time.

Neil Brown (20:31):
Well, thanks. It's been a treat to talk to you. Let's do it again.

Doug Downs (20:35):
Awesome. I just love optimism. I love hope.

Here are the top three things we got today from optimist Neil Brown.

Number one, journalism is not dead. It's just different. Strong local and community journalism is actively filling the gaps left by struggling legacy media.

Number two, trust follows relevance, not reach. People trust journalism that serves their daily lives, not the loudest national voices.

And number three, the audience shares the responsibility. Amen. Consumers of news have an obligation to seek out quality sources, not just the ones that confirm what they already believe. It's always been the case.

If you'd like to send a message to our guest, Neil Brown, we've got his contact information in the show notes.

Stories and Strategies is a production of Stories and Strategies Podcasts.

If you like this episode, leave us a rating, possibly a review. Given what we just talked about and how important those are, please do.

(21:34):
Thank you to producers Emily Page and Jocelyn Floralde.

Lastly, do us a favor. Forward this episode to one friend.

Thanks for listening.