Nieman Lab: The Daily Digest

What audiences really want: For journalists to connect with them as people

Plus: How newsrooms are using generative AI, what makes news seem authentic on social media, and how to bridge the divide between academics and journalists. By Mark Coddington and Seth Lewis.
What We’re Reading
Nieman Lab / Joshua Benton
What would Project 2025 do for (or to) journalism? →
“The federal government can intersect with any part of the journalism process — from how stories get reported to the platforms they’re distributed on to the business models that pay the bills. What does Project 2025 have in mind for an institution it doesn’t seem to have much affection for?”
CNN / Brian Stelter
Trump and the hard truth →
“Will there be another ‘Trump bump’ of viewers and subscribers, or will the opposite happen?…As Kristen Welker asked on NBC’s overnight coverage, ‘Will he go after his political rivals, legally? What specifically does that look like?’…Will news organizations have the resources to defend against legal, digital and physical threats?”
Reuters / Michelle Conlin
Thousands of election gamblers anticipate betting jackpot after Trump win →
“Two of the largest of the prediction exchanges, crypto-fueled, offshore Polymarket which sells contracts to overseas bettors and U.S.-based Kalshi which serves U.S. residents, together ended up with a purse of about $450 million as of Tuesday evening, according to data from the companies.”
404 Media / Joseph Cox
Voted in America? This site doxed you →
“Voting rolls are public records, and ways to more readily access them are not new. But during a time of intense division, political violence, or even the broader threat of data being used to dox or harass anyone, sites like VoteRef turn a vital part of the democratic process—simply voting—into a security and privacy threat.”
The Atlantic / Charlie Warzel
X is a white-supremacist site →
“As I was preparing to write this story, I visited some of the most vile corners of the internet. I’ve monitored these spaces for years, and yet this time, I was struck by how little distance there was between them and what X has become. It is impossible to ignore: The difference between X and a known hateful site such as Gab are people like myself….We are the human shield of respectability that keeps Musk’s disastrous $44 billion investment from being little more than an algorithmically powered Stormfront.”
Columbia Journalism Review / Jon Allsop
At war, because we’re at work →
“Already, there is chatter among some observers that the heightened mass outrage and interest of Trump’s first term—which drove eyeballs and subscriptions to organizations producing hard-hitting journalism, and energized the journalism itself—won’t be repeated this time; that exhaustion and apathy might reign instead. If that is indeed to be the case, then it will pose some very sharp questions for the business of news—or rather, intensify questions we’re already grappling with.”
The Hollywood Reporter / Georg Szalai
The U.K. government wants regulatory oversight news site mergers, as it already does over TV, radio, and print mergers →
“The changes would allow for ‘greater scrutiny in the public interest’ of deals that include the purchase of U.K. online news publications and news magazines ‘that might adversely impact accurate reporting, freedom of expression and media plurality.'”
Press Gazette / Charlotte Tobitt
News organizations are forced to accept Google AI crawlers, says FT policy chief →
“Matt Rogerson, director of global public policy and platform strategy at the FT and former Guardian Media Group director of public policy, argued that Google’s “social contract” with publishers — through which it provided value to the industry by sending traffic to their sites — has been broken.”
Axios / Sara Fischer
How Trump’s second term could target media with bullying tactics →
“Are there political levers the former president could pull to target media companies he doesn’t like? Yes. But harassment campaigns and lawsuits that drain companies of time, money, resources and trust are much easier and can be just as punitive.”
The New York Times / Michael M. Grynbaum and John Koblin
TV networks prepared for a long wait that didn’t come →
“Unlike four years ago, anchors were not forced to delve into the minutiae of absentee ballot counts and arcane legal challenges. The legal pundits on retainer at the networks stayed on the sidelines. The trend lines were clear — and some anchors picked up on the direction of the results earlier than others.”
Poynter / Tom Jones
Who owned the 2024 presidential election coverage? →
“Both King and Kornacki moved at lightning speed, using their fingers to flip from this state to that one, and from this county to that one. The expertise they showed and the authority they spoke with made viewers instantly experts on the voting habits of Pennsylvanians and Georgians and North Carolinians. They offered incredible insight, flipping from the current vote total, to what was left outstanding, to how it all compared to 2020 and 2016. Well before official numbers came in, thanks to the analysis of King and Kornacki, viewers could quickly see where results were headed.”