Nieman Lab.
Predictions for
Journalism, 2025.
The year ahead will be transformative for news and journalism as the cracks in the foundation of mainstream media deepen. The election of Donald Trump — once again misunderstood, dismissed, and maligned by media — has exposed a fundamental truth: The establishment press no longer represents the pulse of the public. Much like the state-controlled media systems of the late Soviet Union, the MSM has become the nomenklatura of our era — privileged, insular, and increasingly out of touch with the realities of the populations they claim to serve. It is also incapable of taking a nonpartisan view.
Instead of learning from the lessons of 2016, when their collective myopia missed the wave of populist discontent, major outlets (with the exception of a few promising developments in a handful of names) have mostly doubled down on their narrow narratives. The elite retreat to Bluesky is further evidence of the insular mindset. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn predicted in his 1978 Harvard address, ideological orthodoxy now dominates, not through direct censorship but through the internalized fear of deviating from the “acceptable” consensus. The result is a media ecosystem where uncomfortable truths are ignored, and alternative perspectives are framed as threats rather than contributions to the discourse.
Yet the alternative to mainstream media — a chaotic “wild west” of independent platforms — brings its own challenges. Much like the samizdats of the Soviet underground, these independents have given voice to dissent and pushed beyond the establishment narrative, but they lack structure, standards, and accountability. While their role in empowering free speech and the modern equivalent of anekdot culture in the former U.S.S.R. is vital, they remain an imperfect counterbalance to the MSM. Too often, these platforms amplify noise, conspiracy, and tribalism, failing to provide a coherent framework for truth-seeking.
2025 will force a reckoning between these two offsetting media forces. The outcome, if it can be funded independently, will result in the development of a new journalistic norm that bridges the gap between the institutional framework of mainstream media and the dynamism of independent journalism.
Unlike Substack, which allows anyone to publish without built-in accountability, or Community Notes on X, which depends on decentralized reader consensus to moderate content, this new model will offer readers a structured but flexible marketplace of values. To gain trust, journalists will have to openly declare their principles so that they can be judged by peers and readers based on how well they adhere to those standards. Peer reviews, blockchain-backed verification, and dispute resolution mechanisms will ensure transparency and integrity while avoiding the murky arbitrariness of traditional editorial hierarchies.
In an ideal world, journalists will then self-organize into communities of trust and accountability and readers will engage directly with these value systems, choosing guilds that reflect their priorities, but with the capacity to flag breaches of declared standards. Importantly, such a system will operate on a principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” Authors of disputed content won’t just be cancelled. Monetization will be held in escrow until a fair peer review determines whether it violated the guild’s principles. This should balance the need for freedom of expression with the requirement for accountability, creating a system that combines the best aspects of institutional journalism and independent platforms.
Another mechanism that could help fill the credibility gap is the creation of an Annual Disinformation Awards. In 2025, this initiative would serve as a neutral, bipartisan forum to expose the most egregious disinformation campaigns — whether they originate from state actors, political operatives, or media institutions. The awards would allow both sides of the political divide to submit entries highlighting disinformation campaigns pushed by their adversaries, from the downplaying of the Wuhan lab leak thesis to the promotion of false narratives by political fringes.
The beauty of this concept lies in its neutrality. By allowing both left and right to participate, the awards would become a tool for critical engagement, exposing manipulation tactics used across the spectrum. This “revelation of the method” would educate audiences about how they are deceived, fostering a healthier skepticism toward all media while forcing journalists and platforms to confront their own biases.
All in all, 2025 has the potential to be a pivotal year for journalism. This is especially the case if new models emerge that force mainstream media to acknowledge their role as the new nomenklatura and to confront their own biases and blind spots.
Izabella Kaminska is senior finance editor at Politico Europe and founder editor of The Blind Spot.
The year ahead will be transformative for news and journalism as the cracks in the foundation of mainstream media deepen. The election of Donald Trump — once again misunderstood, dismissed, and maligned by media — has exposed a fundamental truth: The establishment press no longer represents the pulse of the public. Much like the state-controlled media systems of the late Soviet Union, the MSM has become the nomenklatura of our era — privileged, insular, and increasingly out of touch with the realities of the populations they claim to serve. It is also incapable of taking a nonpartisan view.
Instead of learning from the lessons of 2016, when their collective myopia missed the wave of populist discontent, major outlets (with the exception of a few promising developments in a handful of names) have mostly doubled down on their narrow narratives. The elite retreat to Bluesky is further evidence of the insular mindset. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn predicted in his 1978 Harvard address, ideological orthodoxy now dominates, not through direct censorship but through the internalized fear of deviating from the “acceptable” consensus. The result is a media ecosystem where uncomfortable truths are ignored, and alternative perspectives are framed as threats rather than contributions to the discourse.
Yet the alternative to mainstream media — a chaotic “wild west” of independent platforms — brings its own challenges. Much like the samizdats of the Soviet underground, these independents have given voice to dissent and pushed beyond the establishment narrative, but they lack structure, standards, and accountability. While their role in empowering free speech and the modern equivalent of anekdot culture in the former U.S.S.R. is vital, they remain an imperfect counterbalance to the MSM. Too often, these platforms amplify noise, conspiracy, and tribalism, failing to provide a coherent framework for truth-seeking.
2025 will force a reckoning between these two offsetting media forces. The outcome, if it can be funded independently, will result in the development of a new journalistic norm that bridges the gap between the institutional framework of mainstream media and the dynamism of independent journalism.
Unlike Substack, which allows anyone to publish without built-in accountability, or Community Notes on X, which depends on decentralized reader consensus to moderate content, this new model will offer readers a structured but flexible marketplace of values. To gain trust, journalists will have to openly declare their principles so that they can be judged by peers and readers based on how well they adhere to those standards. Peer reviews, blockchain-backed verification, and dispute resolution mechanisms will ensure transparency and integrity while avoiding the murky arbitrariness of traditional editorial hierarchies.
In an ideal world, journalists will then self-organize into communities of trust and accountability and readers will engage directly with these value systems, choosing guilds that reflect their priorities, but with the capacity to flag breaches of declared standards. Importantly, such a system will operate on a principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” Authors of disputed content won’t just be cancelled. Monetization will be held in escrow until a fair peer review determines whether it violated the guild’s principles. This should balance the need for freedom of expression with the requirement for accountability, creating a system that combines the best aspects of institutional journalism and independent platforms.
Another mechanism that could help fill the credibility gap is the creation of an Annual Disinformation Awards. In 2025, this initiative would serve as a neutral, bipartisan forum to expose the most egregious disinformation campaigns — whether they originate from state actors, political operatives, or media institutions. The awards would allow both sides of the political divide to submit entries highlighting disinformation campaigns pushed by their adversaries, from the downplaying of the Wuhan lab leak thesis to the promotion of false narratives by political fringes.
The beauty of this concept lies in its neutrality. By allowing both left and right to participate, the awards would become a tool for critical engagement, exposing manipulation tactics used across the spectrum. This “revelation of the method” would educate audiences about how they are deceived, fostering a healthier skepticism toward all media while forcing journalists and platforms to confront their own biases.
All in all, 2025 has the potential to be a pivotal year for journalism. This is especially the case if new models emerge that force mainstream media to acknowledge their role as the new nomenklatura and to confront their own biases and blind spots.
Izabella Kaminska is senior finance editor at Politico Europe and founder editor of The Blind Spot.
