Does journalism have a future?

A conversation with Derek Thompson.

A confession: I am a HUGE Derek Thompson fan.

His work at The Atlantic is, always, must-read stuff for me. (I recently wrote off of his piece on the decline of “hanging out.”) And his “Plain English” podcast is consistently thought-provoking. (I loved the episode about anxiety.)

Derek was recently a guest on Bill Simmons’ podcast where he talked about the future of a number of industries — from health to tech to sports. It was a GREAT conversation that I recommend to everyone. (It’s worth it for the Ozempic insights alone!)

But, it left me wondering: What does Derek think the future holds for media? It’s been an awful last few years in the industry but does he see any bright lights or green shoots?

I reached out to him to ask those questions. He graciously agreed to do a Q and A with me. Our conversation, conducted via email and lightly edited for flow, is below.

Make sure to follow Derek and his work. You will thank me.

I bring you this sort of quality content every single day! But I need your support to keep doing it! Please consider becoming a paid subscriber today. It’s just $5 a month!

Chris: Ask most reporters and editors to define the future of media and they won’t have a vision beyond something like “bleak.”  Is there ANY reasons for optimism as you see it?

Derek: The bad news is that the advertising business model that sustained media for much of the last 100 years is falling apart — or, at the very least, it's in obvious structural decline. In 2000, 70% of the NYT's business was ads. Now 70% of their business is subscriptions. That's evidence of a sea change, and a lot of companies have and will drown in it. 

The good news? That's easy. I'm not just a news producer. I'm a news consumer. And it is easier than ever to find truly excellent, expert-level information about just about anything in the world.

I feel like I subscribe to Substacks from world class biologists, political scientists, engineers, and psychologists. I listen to podcasts where I can hear scientists and sociologists and just general brilliant and funny people talk for hours about their work and their ideas about the world. Like, what?! That's wild.

Historically speaking, that is fucking NUTS. Nothing like that existed in the 1950s or 1960s, during the heyday of ad model. Nothing like that existed in any purported golden age of journalism. So that’s the crushing irony. This is a golden age of media for consumers, and the Internet creates consumer subsidies in ways that destroy legacy companies—in music, film, TV, and journalism.

Chris: We talk about how many streaming services will ultimately survive. But what about how many MAJOR media outlets will survive?  Are we talking 5? 10? Less?

Derek: I think it's very hard to answer the question. Clearly, the New York Times is a goliath. But many major media outlets today will become minor media outlets. And some minor media outlets might become major. It's also hard to understand these days what kind of media company ought to count as major.

Is Joe Rogan a major media outlet? Kind of!? There's no way we've seen the last Rogan phenomenon—that is, a single person who becomes larger than many major media outlets in terms of reach. 

Chris: The successes we have seen in the political media in the last 5-ish years have largely been outlets/Substacks/Twitter feeds that cater to one side/party exclusively. Can a middle-of-the-road publication succeed? If so, how?

Derek: I agree that a lot of the most successful media startups in the last few years have carved out very clear “antagonistic niches” -- by which I mean, I can absolutely tell you who the enemy of those publications are.

To take one example of a clear success story, I know the sort of people the Free Press is against. Their antagonistic identity is really very clear. And it's great to have an identity as a news organization.

But I worry sometimes that the high level of competition in the news media encourages new entrants to define themselves by signaling to audiences “these are the bad guys!” rather than focusing on the most important stories for the most people.

Chris: AI.  You have talked and written a lot about it.  People have suggested it is going to remake journalism — and leave a lot of people out of jobs. Agree or disagree — and why?

Derek: I think the right way to think about AI right now is that it can do the work of several B+ research assistants or interns. It can't replace experienced journalists, but it can replace some entry-level positions. I’m interested to see how that changes the career path of young journalists, if media companies recognize that they need fewer young journalists to do these simple tasks that ChatGPT is proficient at. 

Chris: Finish this sentence: “In 10 years, people will primarily get their news via ____________.” Now, explain.

Derek: Their phones.

Beyond that, I have no idea. Sorry to be a copout, but we’re years past people “primarily” getting their news from a single source. Young people today get their news from YouTube, TikTok, Insta, podcasts, maybe Twitter and Reddit, plus a share of newspapers and magazines. That media mountain is only going to get higher, especially if GPTs become a mainstream news source.