A Former Washington Post Editor Weighs in on the Future of Journalism

This article is a part of our Ask a Professor series, in which Georgetown faculty members break down complex issues and use their research to inform trending conversations, from the latest pop culture hits to research breakthroughs and critical global events shaping our world.

In February, the Washington Post laid off more than 300 journalists and reduced its workforce by about 30 percent, making deep cuts to the company's sports, local news and international reporting.

The announcement from one of the country's largest news media organizations is just the latest in many disruptions to the field of journalism in recent years, from declining trust in the mediato the impacts of AI and shrinking viewership and subscriber counts, especially among local outlets.

Meanwhile, the rise of platforms like Substack has made it easier for reporters to produce independent journalism without the backing of a major news organization.

For Rebecca Sinderbrand, professor of the practice and director of the Journalism Programin the College of Arts & Sciences, the Washington Post layoffs weren't a shock but part of a broader trend in the media industry.

"The shock is that there have been a handful of legacy national news outlets that hold an outsized place in public consciousness and appear to have made a successful transition to the new era, either through new profit models, subsidy by exceptionally wealthy owners, or both," Sinderbrand said. "Until fairly recently, the Postwas on that short list."

We asked Sinderbrand about the Washington Postlayoffs, the role of independent reporters and how AI is shaping journalism's future.

Ask a Professor: AI, Independent Media and the Business of Journalism

Do you think the layoffs at the Washington Post signal a broader trend in the media industry?

The Washington Postlayoffs were a shock but not a surprise. The headcount at legacy media organizations across the industry has been shrinking, bureaus have been closing and entire newsrooms have been shutting down for good for decades now, with an acceleration in recent years.

The shock is that there have been a handful of legacy national news outlets that hold an outsized place in public consciousness and appear to have made a successful transition to the new era, either through new profit models, subsidy by exceptionally wealthy owners or both. Until fairly recently, the Postwas on that short list.

Are we seeing a change in trust in how audiences perceive independent creators versus institutional media?

For traditional journalism, the issue of trust is an existential one. For decades, trust in legacy journalism has been declining, alongside trust in other societal institutions. Some journalists and editorial leaders at legacy media organizations would argue that if they're engaged in a battle of the brands, then traditional news outlets with rigorous verification processes, a dedication to an ideal of objectivity and a culture of accountability still have an edge on trust over independent creators.

It's not universally true across all media, but certainly most larger news organizations have legal teams, standards teams and other dedicated professionals overseeing the publication of sensitive stories; even the best independent creators lack this level of support, and others would not claim to aspire to it.

The question is whether fairness and accuracy are the primary values that drive trust. Certainly, those are areas a majority of news consumers consistently say they value. But what does that mean in practice? If you hold a strong political viewpoint that shapes how you see the world, then a news source or creator that shares information that confirms your worldview may stake a claim to a far larger share of trust than one that does not.

Additionally, if you are a creator whom audiences connect with due to perceptions of personal qualities - especially when the medium of choice involves video - then, for various psychological reasons, you may have an additional advantage in trust that is difficult for an organization to match in quite the same way. Studies have found that individuals who are viewed as less careful and guarded are viewed as more honest and trustworthy, even when the information they are sharing is not accurate.

How does the quality or type of journalism change with independent creators versus large organizations?

In some respects, social media platforms and the web have been the great leveler: major news outlets and solo journalists and influencers can exist on the same platforms, generating content that can often appear similar in terms of production values, style and even subject matter and tone. And, looping the trust issue back into the conversation, as more and more journalists experienced in the processes and values of traditional news-gathering find themselves being pushed - or choosing to jump - into the world of independent content creation, then there may be little to no difference in quality.

But one major difference to this point has been in some of the most competitive hard news categories. Speaking broadly in terms of the U.S. audience, this would have been political beat reporting - city hall or statehouse bureaus, White House teams, campaign coverage; investigative reporting, across all beats; and of course, international coverage and war reporting. Most of these beats require individuals with significant expertise, and virtually all of them require vast resources for travel, physical infrastructure, long projects, and more. Foreign bureaus were the first to disappear - the Posthad been one of the few holdouts.

Most national outlets are abandoning local coverage, and most local outlets lack the resources for permanent oversight reporting, so for years we've been watching whole categories of important public service coverage evaporating before our eyes. There are people and organizations working very hard to address this trend. We can't reverse it - the world moves in one direction. But hopefully, the individuals who have been working to revive and sustain this necessary reporting, with similar standards and priorities, will succeed. The key will be maintaining the flexibility to keep evolving.

How are newsrooms adapting to generative AI and reduced traffic to their websites?

Everyone is still finding their way on AI - there are almost as many approaches as there are news organizations. There have been some unfortunate, but perhaps inevitable, attempts by some to use AI for writing and editing tasks as a way of compensating for understaffed newsrooms or creating next-gen personalized news products; up to this moment, most of those efforts have demonstrated that technology isn't quite ready for prime time. That, of course, may change - and soon - but it's the reality right now.

That said, other news organizations have used AI in some very promising ways - in particular as a tool, with human oversight and extensive quality control, to aid in the reporting process. We've incorporated some of these processes in real time in the classroom - journalism students are literally able to use large language models to create their own apps, which gather and sort vast amounts of information in minutes, tasks that would otherwise take hours or even days to complete. There is obviously the need for multiple rounds of rigorous verification, but this has enabled our students - with special insight from former Washington Postjournalists who've visited us this semester - to conduct ambitious, data-driven reporting projects and produce professional-quality results.

Many news organizations have shed subscribers and digital traffic in recent years. How can newsrooms stay in business while providing quality journalism?

The trend toward lower traffic has been descending for some time, and the search for a substitute has been a top priority. Subscription growth powered by lifestyle offerings such as Cooking and Games has been a very successful model for the New York Times; the Atlanticis another outlet that has managed to attract subscribers. We've also seen the rise and fall and rise of newsletters, live events and other add-ons as potential revenue generators.

Some news organizations have embraced nonprofit status or been subsidized by a public-minded philanthropist willing to absorb low profits or losses - for some time, the Postfell in that category. All of those models and more are being tried as substitutes for traffic and advertising. The experiments continue, but there is promise.

What gives you hope about the field of journalism, particularly in the face of these challenges?

This one is easy. My biggest source of hope for journalism is the students I work with every day. They grew up in a wired world; they are innovative, and dedicated and ready. They're entering this profession with eyes wide open: Every year I've been in this role, teaching seniors, there's been a cataclysmic layoff in a major newsroom at the midpoint of the academic year. And still, each spring, students are determined to find a way to keep reporting past graduation. I always tell my former colleagues that the surefire cure for a case of industry doomerism is a field trip from the newsroom to the classroom. There is quality journalism in our future, and these students will produce it.