Sign up for The Media Today, CJR’s daily newsletter.
New year, new me-dia? As 2025 dawns, familiar challenges are heaving into view for the press: how to cover an administration led by Donald Trump; how to meet news consumers where they are; whether we’re even relevant anymore. And yet the contours of such challenges are new, or greater in scope than before—or, at least, hard to predict going forward. Trump could graduate from (mostly) rhetorical media-bashing and use the hard power of the state to curb newsgathering in novel and chilling ways; questions of media relevance, meanwhile, have reached a fever pitch since the election, when new media, in the literal sense, was widely credited with facilitating Trump’s victory. To kick off the new year, CJR staffers and contributors outline the trends they’ll be watching in 2025—in old and new media venues alike, as well as across the worlds of tech, the right-wing “griftosphere,” and, well, the world. (This newsletter will return in its usual format tomorrow.) —Jon Allsop
Betsy Morais, managing editor:
After the election, I kept hearing versions of the question: Is journalism dead? I don’t think so; not really. But as Clare Malone told CJR’s Lauren Watson in November, “We have to balance the belief that we are doing the right thing and that we are getting the best information by also being self-conscious of whether we are communicating it in the best way.” During the campaigns, Trump and Kamala Harris both sidestepped traditional media outlets at times, making room for major podcasters—such as Joe Rogan, Alex Cooper, and Mark William Calaway, better known as WWE’s “The Undertaker”—in the interest of reaching key demographics. To what extent will news organizations try to replicate that approach, whether by borrowing moves from influencers or by partnering with them? Is there such a thing as a viable collaboration between a staid legacy media company and a cool social media account? Or is it, maybe, that the only way for an old-school publication to have any credibility is to go fully normcore—that is, by embracing print? I will be watching what attempts are made—what feels promising, problematic, or just awkward—in the hope that journalism can thrive with creativity.
Ravi Somaiya, digital editor:
I’ll be watching what I see as a race across the media landscape. Can old media, which has a great depth of skill and experience, learn to be interesting before new media, which instinctively grasps how to reach people, figures out the foibles of finding and delivering new information?
Feven Merid, staff writer and senior Delacorte fellow:
There’s always discussion among media people about the struggles and decline of traditional methods of delivering journalism, but I don’t think this means that people aren’t interested in accessing news and information anymore. I’ll be watching what people are actually gravitating toward and enjoying for their news, with an eye on the ways in which social media creates media hubs for people. I’m thinking of places like Reddit, which has emerged as a place to hold influencers to account, and, of course, how Palestinian journalists and non-journalists alike have used Instagram to cover the war in Gaza firsthand at great risk––something major news outlets have struggled to do. Outside of that, I’m always into people starting things––like a magazine about bathrooms––just because that’s what’s interesting to them.
Josh Hersh, contributing editor:
There are a lot of good reasons for journalists to be worried right now: Are audiences listening to what we have to say? Is there enough money to keep us employed? Can we withstand a legal and rhetorical onslaught from another Trump administration? But as I look to next year, I can’t help but wonder if we can possibly, somehow, find a way to have a good time, too. That’s the not-so-secret sauce behind those podcasts and digital shows that have taken the media by storm; sure, they have high-profile guests, provocative conversations, and an idiosyncratic mix of politics and sports—but watch for long enough and you’ll notice that they’re also having fun. Of course, traditional journalism can’t afford to laugh off the world’s problems, but we must continue to find a way to communicate important truths without coming off as moralizing. And we have to create opportunities to show audiences that we are capable of enjoying ourselves. Otherwise, who’s going to want to join us?
Bill Grueskin, Columbia Journalism School faculty member and CJR contributor:
In 2025, I’ll be watching how the US legal system twists reporters into financial and legal jeopardy. As 2024 was ending, ABC/Disney capitulated to Trump in a sixteen-million-dollar settlement over a defensible defamation suit; days later, Trump sued the Des Moines Register; its parent, Gannett; the former Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer; and her firm, in a baseless claim about a poll that turned out to be way off the mark. So far, this is what we can see: news organizations acquiescing to the powerful. I’m far more concerned about what we can’t see: the investigative stories that aren’t written, the tough headlines that are dumbed down, the brilliant reporters who aren’t hired because of the legal jeopardy they might cause for their employers. A news organization can win a defamation case and also be ruined by it. And there aren’t enough legal-defense funds to cover all the costs of litigation, to say nothing of the potential for criminal probes pushed by a Kash Patel–led FBI.
Jon Allsop, chief writer of The Media Today:
I’ll be watching to see how the political press covers Donald Trump’s second term, and how it is—and isn’t—different from last time. As Trump’s first term drew to a close, my colleague Pete Vernon and I wrote about the many pitfalls of Trump coverage that we’d observed while writing CJR’s daily newsletter, The Media Today. Since then, some (breathlessly chasing after Trump’s every finger twitch on Twitter) have diminished, while others (Trump has a new tone!) have remained in currency. Will Trump 2.0’s threatened crackdown on journalism focus minds? Will it cow the press? Will Trump-as-showman coverage continue anyway?
Sarah Grevy Gotfredsen, Tow Center fellow and Media Today tech writer:
I will be watching how Trump 2.0 changes the tech policy landscape, especially with tech titan Elon Musk now in his inner circle. It will be crucial for journalists to report on whether Trump delivers on his promises (and threats) to the Big Tech industry. Will he, for instance, prevent a TikTok ban from kicking in at the start of the new year (if the Supreme Court doesn’t get there first)? And is Joe Biden’s executive order on AI safety doomed to be repealed? I will also be keeping an eye on Bluesky, an alternative to Musk’s X, where many journalists migrated after the election. Some observers have predicted that X will no longer be the unified hub for journalists and that their digital footprint will be more scattered across platforms. Personally, I’ll be setting up camp on Bluesky and other competing platforms to watch whether the migration actually takes off or fades into history.
Meghnad Bose, Delacorte fellow:
How will social media giants treat “political content” on their platforms under a second Trump presidency, even as their honchos cozy up to the man himself? In February 2024, Meta instituted an algorithmic change that drastically reduced how much “political content” Instagram users are shown. And Mark Zuckerberg, its CEO, has made overtures to Trump—Meta donated a million dollars to Trump’s inaugural fund, an apparent departure from past practice at the company. It will be important to keep tabs on whether its attitude toward political content suddenly shifts again. Then there’s X, owned by a man who is arguably closer with Trump than his own vice president–elect. Numerous questions and allegations of algorithmic bias swirled around his handling of X during the election cycle; now research on the matter is on its way, and the initial signs are worrying. TikTok, meanwhile, is looking toward Trump as its potential protector from a ban; if Trump fulfills his pledge to oppose it, does he stand to gain from the platform in any way? The algorithms of all these social media platforms are black boxes—deliberately undecipherable and opaque. As tech companies extend acts of bonhomie to the incoming president, I will be deeply curious to track any changes that the platforms make in the new year—at least, the changes we can find out about.
Sacha Biazzo, Delacorte fellow:
In 2025, it will be critical to keep the spotlight on places where reporters face censorship, murder, and violence while still telling stories that would otherwise go untold. Last year, Palestine emerged as the deadliest region for journalists globally, with more than half of the journalists killed worldwide losing their lives there, according to the International Federation of Journalists. Mexico, which until recently was thought to be the deadliest place on earth to be a reporter, continues to have a high mortality rate; journalists in Sinaloa risk their lives every day to cover the activities and wars of drug cartels. In places like these, journalism is more than a job: it’s a daily act of courage. Its practitioners’ efforts serve as a reminder that despite changes in the media landscape, the fundamental struggle for press safety and independence is far from over.
Lauren Watson, Delacorte fellow:
I’ll be keeping an eye on the alluring topic of standards and certifications, and how those are being used to separate news media from social media and entertainment while players in the former industry try to rebuild journalism’s authority and its shared sense of responsibility. Last year, CJR published an analysis by Nicholas Lemann titled “Thinking the Unthinkable About the First Amendment.” It is a discussion I have come to understand as taboo in my short time in the industry, but it poses the question in the current climate: Should journalists take an oath? Adhere to some enforced standard? A license? Malpractice insurance? Public audits? The lines between journalists and non-journalists feel more blurred than ever. The Journalism Trust Initiative, an international journalism certification developed by Reporters Without Borders, informed the rubric that will arbitrate whether Canadian news outlets are eligible for funding under the Online News Act, a bill that requires Big Tech to pay Canadian news outlets. The European Union has adopted the same standard to define journalism under its new code of practice for disinformation. Various other organizations have long looked to the trustworthiness of news, and who is funding it. I am curious as to whether these and other standards are actually helping to protect journalists and build trust, or could backfire and further polarize audiences, making things more difficult for independent journalists who don’t have the structural power of large outlets behind them, and, perhaps, making news more of a target for the new Trump administration.
Mike Laws, copy maven:
“Preprogramming”: Or, the right-wing griftosphere tells on itself. The more conspiracy-pilled corners of the online right have a claim they like to make: that “they”—it doesn’t really clarify anything to say that this refers to “the globalists,” or a cabal of blood-drinkers led by George Soros/Bill Gates/Klaus Schwab, or maybe just Jews—will commit a “false flag” terror attack aimed at some vulnerable group; to hear Alex Jones tell it, it’ll be at a migrant rally or a service at a Black church or [he gives several more examples, getting increasingly florid with the imagined violence] or maybe it’ll just be an assault on the power grid, with the goal being to paint a fall guy or patsy as a member of the far right so that the FBI or NSA or or or can declare martial law and put the patriots into concentration camps. Or something like that. Note the weaving-in of the very real and pretty much constant far-right plotting to blow up power substations (but in a way that instantly reassigns responsibility for same); note how for all the talk of “globalist preprogramming” that’s exactly the game here: a pre-spinning of right-wing violence. Of course, we’ve seen this kind of thing before. (Remember how quick some of these, erm, media thought leaders were to portray January 6 as a deep-state op, and how pervasive a belief they inculcated.) But I’m not sure it was before-the-fact in quite the same way. I shudder a little to call it terrorwashing.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.
