Why reporting matters

Why it matters: My response, in a speech at the National Press Club that went shockingly viral, was: "Bullshit!" I argued that an America without clinical, fair, deep and fearless reporting will perish.

• Absent reporting, which I define as the pursuit of fact-based truth without fear or favoritism, you'd have: more opioid deaths … more kids sexually abused in churches … more welfare fraud in Mississippi … more lawlessness in rural Alaska … more Harvey Weinsteins preying on young women … more corruption … more misinformation.

Reality check: You're right to dunk on biased, sloppy, lazy coverage. I hate it, too: It undercuts the hard work of every on-the-level reporter working their beats — whether at the White House or in my hometown of Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

• But we need to distinguish between "the media" and honest reporting. I try to avoid junk food — not all food. I'd starve.

The backstory: Angry emails I received after the speech show how many lump all parts of "the media" together, sweeping in anyone who's paid to talk or type or report. I read every one. To say a lot of people on X hate "the media" is a gross understatement. My inbox confirms this emphatically.

• Axios is very much not the legacy media, which has done plenty to undermine its own credibility. I have helped build two media companies — Politico and Axios — based on my own frustrations with legacy media. Journalists too often write for each other or awards committees. They're too slow to own up to mistakes, and too quick to pop off on social media in ways that betray bias or righteousness.

• So 18 years ago, I left The Washington Post to help start Politico — aiming to build a more direct, authentic relationship between readers and reporters. Eight years ago, I left Politico to help start Axios, grounded in an "audience first" mentality. We'll never have an opinion section. And our audience "Bill of Rights" promises: "We will go the extra mile to earn your trust. All employees are asked to refrain from taking/advocating for public positions on political topics."

Maybe it's masochistic. But I want to take you inside a world with no trust in the sort of journalism that adheres to rigorous standards.

• I also want to remind fellow journalists of the very legitimate concerns of our critics. Make no mistake: This is a war to restore faith in our work. And we're losing — decisively.

Between the lines: The American miracle rests on untamed democracy, the animal spirits of capitalism, the magic of unrestrained innovation, and the soft power of a vigilant and vibrant free press. I'm a believer in — and beneficiary of — all four.

• I'm also, on balance, a fan of our increasingly scattered information ecosystem. I'm smarter today about health because of podcasters like Peter Attia, and exposed to new people and ideas because of Joe Rogan and a lot of smart people on X and other platforms.
• But I also believe strongly and immovably that reporting and journalistic standards are vital for the American system, and the emerging information ecosystem, to prosper.  Hell, I would find X a snore if it didn't surface and feed off reported news.

Too many seem ready to dismiss anything produced by what they call legacy media. We're playing with fire here. Torch all networks, all newspapers, all news sites with trained reporters, and you're left with little to police government, the powerful, the corrupt, or foreign wars. Random tweeters aren't equipped to invest the time, money or meticulous care to reveal:

• What The Boston Globe did with a monumental investigation of sexual abuse by priests in the Catholic Church abuse scandal — courageous reporting that led other denominations to root out molestation of kids.
• What the Anchorage Daily News and ProPublica did with their "Lawless" series, exposing rampant sexual assault in Alaska's rural communities. Many citizens now have police protection and newfound safety.
• What Eric Eyre, then of the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette-Mail, did by overcoming well-funded opposition and exposing the superhighway of opioids to depressed towns in coal country. "Follow the pills and you'll find the overdose deaths," his series began.
• What The Wall Street Journal did by uncovering failures of the U.S. exit from Afghanistan, documenting volunteers' rescues of stranded civilians, and the Taliban's success in outwitting and outwaiting the world.
• And what Mississippi Today did by exposing the state's rampant welfare fraud, provoking criminal charges — and now a furious legal effort by the ex-governor to expose the sources of the nonpartisan, nonprofit newsroom.

State of play: Musk argues on X that legacy media "forgot that honesty really is the best policy," and has become a "click-maximizing machine, not a truth-maximizing machine!" This school of thought argues that citizens posting on social media are superior to legacy reporters, who can be corrupted by groupthink, corporate profits and misguided trust in "experts."

• But X is a massive part of ... the media! It's easily the most powerful platform for Trump's MAGA movement, which just swept full control of Washington. But that doesn't turn its users into reporters, any more than my owning a Ford F-150 makes me an automaker.

What you can do: I advise my friends — or critics — who are skeptical of Axios or legacy media to try out a publication for a few weeks. Decide for yourself if that organization seems to be trying to get to the closest approximation of the truth, and achieves it the vast majority of the time.

• Notice the standard isn't perfection. It's intent and results. Based on your clear-eyed appraisal of the totality.
• One bad story — or dumb headline, or clumsy phrase that gets screenshot and lit up — does not a failed publication, or industry, make. But we in "the media" need to do better. That's where critics are right.

What we can do: As an industry, we have been too ...

• Quick to trust establishment experts: You've especially seen this during wars and COVID. Our job is to be skeptical until we learn otherwise. If something seems head-scratching — like medical experts speaking with total certainty about a novel coronavirus — it probably is.
• Slow to admit error: We're so much stronger when we confidently and clearly admit what we get wrong — and explain why. Not with ass-covering explanations, but bluntness. We'd all benefit from a tad more humility.
• Condescending, and not incurious: Reflect on how you, or your organization, covered Donald Trump and his followers. Did you try to understand the voters, the roots of their concerns or fears, and why they flocked to Trump? Did you come at it with preconceived ideas about people who live in small towns, or carry guns, or wear MAGA hats? Curiosity is the antidote to condescension. It's also the gateway to understanding.
• Fearful: It takes courage to question the status quo, write unpopular stories or argue internally when coverage is drifting into groupthink. It will take courage to do your job when critics pile on — or try to discredit you in the years ahead.

The bottom line: This historic war for truth is just beginning. The coming years will reorder everything we know and think about news and information and opinion. Shame on us if reported truth is the biggest casualty.

• Go deeper: "Shards of glass: Inside media's 12 splintering realities."

Get Axios Finish Line.