Information Collapse, Democratic Decline, and What We Can Do About It
We may be living in a post-truth era where public skepticism toward institutions fuels the viral spread of "alternative facts" and conspiracy theories. The systematic erosion of trust in traditional news sources, amplified by social media's tendency to create echo chambers, has fractured public trust in news sources. Americans increasingly consume information within algorithmic ‘bespoke realities,’ where the same events are presented with vastly different contexts depending on which curated universe you inhabit. When people exist in entirely different factual universes, democratic discourse seems impossible.
This systematic erosion of trust in traditional news sources creates fertile ground for opportunistic politicians to dismiss credible journalism as "fake news." President Donald Trump has made clear his desire to use federal agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Justice (DOJ), to pressure media outlets whose reporting he dislikes. Such attacks threaten the independent press that democracy requires to function.
There is a reason why the First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights states “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” For democracy to function effectively, there must be an independent press insulated from the will and demands of public officials, private executives, and other powerbrokers. Journalists are crucial to shedding light on corporate greed or corrupt politicking, informing citizens about the options available to them to inform their own advocacy, whether through protest, boycott, or direct appeal to policymakers. Without independent journalists reporting on town halls, geopolitical conflicts, and everything in between, citizens are left wearing horse blinders, fostering a myopic view of the world around us.
Press freedom and free speech are foundational to the American experiment. And while throughout our history there have been times when journalists have been vilified or scapegoated, Americans, by and large, stand behind the First Amendment. Still, we are facing greater challenges in accessing reliable information needed to hold powerful actors accountable, distinguish credible candidates from demagogues, and participate meaningfully in democratic processes. The trends in our information environment are alarming, but there are strategies to rebuild trusted information systems and strengthen the core principles of free expression and a free, trustworthy press in ways that support democracy and civic engagement.
The Watchdogs We Are Losing
To understand what is at stake in this crisis, we need to recognize the value that independent journalism has brought to American democracy. We have seen how journalists hold the powerful to account: in the 1970s, the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers, revealing how administrations had misled Americans about the Vietnam War; In 1974, The Washington Post’s investigative journalists uncovered the Watergate scandal that ultimately led to Nixon’s resignation; The Boston Globe revealed widespread sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. In 2004, a New Yorker journalist detailed prison abuse at Abu Ghraib; Journalists published Edward Snowden’s leaked documents in 2013, exposing U.S. government mass surveillance and sparking debates on privacy and civil liberties; and in 2021, Frances Haugen, a former Facebook employee turned whistleblower, exposed online platform-related harms in the Wall Street Journal. These victories along with countless examples of local reporters exposing corruption in their communities, like Spotlight PA investigating theft by a former city manager, are made possible within a media ecosystem that supports sustained, resource-intensive reporting.
The Internet revolutionized how we consume and share information in ways that seemed entirely positive at first. Barriers to entry were eliminated when anyone could publish their own website with news and information. Message boards evolved into microblogging sites, suddenly giving individuals direct access to their personal networks and to the very politicians and business leaders they only read about in newspapers. Online platforms opened the door to citizen journalism, amplifying diverse voices that had been drowned out by dominant discourse and democratizing information access like never before. Instead of waiting for evening news segments or tomorrow’s newspaper, breaking news started arriving instantaneously on platforms like Twitter, even if it is communicated in 280 characters or fewer.
What once appeared to democratize information has fundamentally altered how we process facts and make decisions, creating an environment where misinformation outpaces truth, political divisions reach unprecedented extremes, and algorithmic systems shape what millions see and believe. The root cause lies in the commercialization of attention itself. Information that once served primarily to educate has evolved into a strategic product designed for maximizing engagement. Truth, accuracy, and context take a backseat to popularity, persuasion, profit, and power. In a 2018 MIT Study published in Science, we see how false content is amplified at a much faster rate than true content. The result is that factual material gets buried under waves of ideologically motivated content designed to trigger emotion rather than inform.
Meanwhile, as online platforms outcompete newspapers for both attention and advertising revenue, newsroom employment collapses. The ad-supported, free-access model pioneered by social media platforms has fundamentally altered consumer expectations regarding paying for quality information, effectively undermining both the perceived value of professional journalism and the economic mechanisms that historically sustain it. Since 2005, newsroom jobs have dropped by a staggering 75%, leaving an estimated 50 million Americans living in what experts call "news deserts." Without local journalists, stories covering school board elections, exposing embezzling mayors, or documenting the weekend's cultural festivals on America's main streets vanish into thin air.
Local papers, radio stations, and TV outlets that have not already closed their doors are being absorbed by media conglomerates like Alden Capital and Sinclair, then stripped down to bare-bones operations with minimal capacity for meaningful local coverage. Meanwhile, the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that Americans increasingly get their news from social media (54%) and AI news aggregation products, rather than from television news sites (50%), news podcasts (15%), or print newspapers (14%). Getting your news from social media is not necessarily problematic, especially when posts link to original reporting from credible sources. But “newsworthy” content on the top of social media feeds often deploys clickbait headlines like “Breaking News” and “The Biggest Scandal Unveiled!” intended to maximize engagement rather than accuracy, creating powerful incentives for sensationalist content to spread faster than measured journalism. Local issues like school board policies, municipal budgets, and city council decisions rarely generate viral engagement that feeds social media algorithms, so they get crowded out by national controversies and partisan battles. As a result, community members are less equipped to evaluate which school board candidates are in their children’s best interest, may unwittingly re-elect a corrupt incumbent, or feel disinclined to vote at all.
Media as the “Enemy of the People”
Compounding the issue is a persistent anti-media campaign by the current White House causing large media organizations to be vulnerable to attack. The President makes it no secret that he views the media as the “enemy of the people,” going as far as weaponizing civil suits against media outlets like The Washington Post, and The New York Times for critical coverage of his presidential campaign. He has pushed the FCC to go after media organizations that the president has publicly denounced as enemies – including CBS for editing a 60 Minutes interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris in a way he viewed as unfair to him. FCC Chair Brendan Carr proposed regulatory measures if broadcasters fail to address programming not in the “public interest," which, in his view, includes late-night comedy shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live. Meanwhile, an investigation by the FTC into Media Matters for America has been blocked by a preliminary injunction, with the judge determining that such an investigation may be retaliation for Media Matters watchdog reporting.
While media criticism has long been a staple of conservative politics, the current assault on press freedom represents a significant escalation of tactics. Former President Nixon pioneered many of these approaches, using the FCC to target broadcast licenses and directing the Department of Justice to launch antitrust lawsuits against television networks to intimidate and control coverage of his administration. However, Nixon faced consequences for his actions, whereas today's attacks have expanded far beyond traditional media with fewer apparent restraints.
The current administration has broadened this playbook to include threats against Section 230, the liability shield that protects social media platforms, specifically targeting companies that moderate content in ways the administration opposes. These regulatory threats have already yielded results, pressuring platforms like Meta to pay millions after deplatforming the President for violating terms of service. What makes this moment unprecedented is not just the scope of the assault – spanning traditional reporters, news outlets, and digital platforms – but the systematic nature of targeting the entire information ecosystem. Yet this comprehensive challenge to information integrity, while concerning, also creates clear opportunities for remedial action and broader civic engagement to defend press freedom across all platforms.
What can I do?
The fragmentation of our information ecosystem did not happen overnight, but Americans can take concrete steps to rebuild by demanding better information and supporting its creation.
Reclaiming Control Over Your Information Diet
You are the manager of your social media feed. Prioritize decentralized alternatives like Bluesky or Mastodon, which serve over 30 million users through open protocols that offer alternative feeds and independent content labeling, countering the commercialization of attention that rewards sensationalism. Particularly after major news events or scandals with limited information, resist the temptation to use platforms like X or Facebook, which tend to prioritize provocative content over trustworthy information. As Utah Governor Spencer Cox said in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder, “the most powerful companies in the history of the world have figured out how to hack our brains, get us addicted to outrage.”
As you consume news, practice deliberate media literacy. When headlines provoke strong emotional reactions, slow down and verify sources through independent outlets. Diversify your information diet across the political spectrum by prioritizing local journalism. Use sites like AllSides to discern the political tilt of news sources, as well as NewsGuard or Snopes, which can provide insight into the reliability of news sources. Going further, learn how to distinguish between reporting, opinion, and sponsored content. For visual content, you can use reverse image searches to check authenticity.
In localities that lack local journalists reporting community news, use tools like Citizen Portal, a resource that aggregates local government information, including public meetings.
Strengthening the Information Infrastructure
Leverage your voice to shape the rules governing digital markets. Contact your federal representative and senators to comment on legislation such as the ACCESS Act, which would allow users to transfer their data to competing platforms and enable interoperability, or the NUDGE Act, which would require platforms to implement research-backed design changes that prioritize user wellbeing over addictive engagement. Be an advocate for legislation that restores competition, prevents mega-mergers, and ensures a level playing field for Americans to have fair access to information.
If you use platforms with Community Notes like X or Meta, dedicate your scroll time to rating or writing contextual information for misleading posts. This crowdsourced fact-checking system only surfaces notes that users across different political perspectives find helpful, making your participation crucial for maintaining the quality of information.
Powerful figures, including President Trump, have filed frivolous lawsuits against publishers and media outlets that disseminate content they oppose. Some have succeeded in silencing opponents linked to entities awaiting regulation – such as the $20 billion lawsuit claiming CBS deceptively edited Kamala Harris’s 60 Minutes interview (at the time, CBS’s parent company, Paramount, had a pending merger before the FCC). Such lawsuits are categorized as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), and are designed to silence critics through costly legal battles. To counter these actions, contact your representatives and advocate for Federal anti-SLAPP laws such as the Free Speech Protection Act.
The best way to ensure rigorous reporting takes place in your community is to subscribe to local newspapers and online community news outlets. Actively engage with local news outlets on their websites, rather than relying on an AI-generated news summary. On a broader yet local level, urge your state and federal officials to explore local policy options such as a local news grantmaking fund similar to the New Jersey Civic Information Consortium or "local news dollars systems" that permit residents to allocate publicly funded credits to local news outlets of their choice.
The fragmentation of our information ecosystem did not happen overnight, and Americans have repeatedly risen to meet existential challenges to free speech and democracy. Democracy has always been a participatory endeavor. Now is the time to thoughtfully manage our information diet with a civic mind for the greater good.
About the Author:
Morgan Wilsmann, B.A., M.A., International Relations, Technology and Innovation, Digital Economy, and former Editor-in-Chief, Johns Hopkins SAIS Perspectives, is a policy analyst at Public Knowledge, a public interest digital rights organization that promotes freedom of expression, an open internet, and access to affordable communications tools and creative works. She works alongside Lisa Macpherson (ALI '19) on Public Knowledge's healthy information systems work, which envisions an information ecosystem where social media platforms' power over online information flows is transparent and democratically accountable, diverse voices can reach their intended audiences without algorithmic or economic barriers, and citizens possess the critical skills needed for informed democratic participation.