This month, North Dakota has become the latest state to be swept up in the declining presence of local news media. One expert sees it as a concerning trend, especially as it relates to accountability and democracy.

In northeastern North Dakota, Ness Press has ended publishing eight weekly newspapers. Operators of the family-run business say a lack of ad revenue, and having no one else to take over, prompted the decision. The papers centered around local announcements.

Dr. Melissa Vosen Callens, associate professor of communications at North Dakota State University, who teachers media literacy, worries it is part of a nationwide erosion of local news, which creates lasting harm.

"Newspaper deserts are dangerous," Vosen Callens asserted. "It limits our access to information, particularly local information, often in already marginalized communities."

She pointed out when people have to seek information elsewhere, their searches may lead them to disinformation and misinformation on social platforms. She noted it increases polarization, which added greater threats to democracy.

Groups tracking the growing prevalence of news deserts said North Dakota has more than two dozen counties with only one newspaper, and two counties have none.

Only a handful of North Dakota's newspapers are daily publications. Vosen Callens emphasized without consistent local coverage, it is harder to know what's happening in the community, which can have long-term social, political and economic implications.

"Local journalism, for example, often reports on and questions government spending," Vosen Callens stressed.

She added media organizations in larger cities around the region cannot keep track of everything going on in smaller towns around them. And as more papers and other local media close up shop, it leaves a gap in holding municipalities -- and those who lead them -- accountable.


get more stories like this via email

By Hevin Wilkey / Broadcast version by Farah Siddiqi reporting for the Kent State NewsLab-Ohio News Connection Collaboration.

Kamala Harris has extensively used social media during her presidential campaign to target a key demographic in this election, Generation Z.

Patrick Houlihan, president of the College Democrats of Ohio and a senior political science major at Miami of Ohio University, said Harris' social media posts have aided in getting people of all demographics, but Gen Z in particular, to understand her policies and who she is.

"She feels like a person," Houlihan said. "She doesn't feel like a politician. That's, well, she does feel like a politician, but she feels like not a robot."

To Houlihan, Harris represents hope and a new age for a younger U.S. government.

Since Harris became the Democratic nominee, there has been an uptick in young voters who are more excited to vote.

UCLA produced a study on Gen Z's motivation and favor to vote in the presidential election. They found that nearly half of respondents were not initially motivated to vote before Harris's nomination, but a third of that group became motivated to vote for Harris.

Once Harris announced her candidacy, she immediately started her campaign, which included strategizing social media.

TikTok account "Kamalahq" has racked in nearly 5 million followers since its first post in February, then named "Bidenhq." The account switched names the day Harris announced that she would be taking Joe Biden's spot seeking the nomination of the Democratic party.

She then quickly adopted videos and edits featuring songs like "Feminimonemon" by Chappell Roan and visuals similar to "Brat" by Charli XCX.

Through various videos such as edits, memes (both uplifting herself and making fun of Donald Trump), clips of speeches from her own page and regular TikTok users, she aimed to connect with a new demographic.

J. Cherie Strachan, a professor and director of the Ray J. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, teaches various political science classes. She works with a mix of undergraduate and graduate students and sees their interests and thoughts firsthand.

"I think [college voices] make or break, right?" Strachan said. "This is a margin of error race, for the presidency at least. Harris needs to not only match the youth support that Biden got four years ago, but if possible, increase it."

Harris is reaching Gen Z Americans through social media, where many of them get their news, according to the Pew Research Center.

A September Harvard Youth Poll reported that out of the 53% of young adults who have seen memes and social media associated with Kamala Harris, 34% say it positively influenced their opinions of her. This poll shows +24 to +33 point leads to Donald Trump in empathy, honesty, reliability and other issues like abortion and climate change.

"No matter if Harris wins or loses, there are going to be thousands of strategists all across the country looking at her campaign trying to figure out what went right, what went wrong," Houlihan said. "One of those things that is probably going to go right and it's going to get duplicated is the social media strategy."

More specifically, the quick, rapid response technique is what is working in his opinion. Harris has found a way to quickly put out indirect statements at any given time in reference to what Trump is saying about her, who is endorsing her, what events and interviews she's doing, et cetera.

To Houlihan, every effort counts, but others don't think social media will be enough for Harris to win.

Malcolm Neitenbach, president of Kent State University's College Republicans and senior psychology major, understands just how much of an impact social media has in elections now more than ever. He said Trump began the trend of candidates using social media in campaigns with Twitter in 2016 and an overall increase in its use with both Biden and Trump in 2020.

"With social media, just the power of reaching these mass groups of people online is changing how politics works nowadays," Neitenbach said. "It's just going to get more prevalent. It's going to be more normalized."

Professor Strachan thinks using social media is strategic in the same way as presidential candidates going to swing states and trying to get any and every possible voter on their side.

"Realizing that the campaign had some weak spots with [swing] voters and, you know, going meeting them where they are." Strachan said. "The same with the memes and the things on social media, if that's where young people are, and we know that that's where you get your news ... Then that's where you go."


This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

The Missouri Broadcasters Association is among the parties filing a lawsuit, claiming a state law that requires extensive redactions in court documents is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, filed in Jefferson City, challenges a law passed last year that mandates attorneys and judicial officers redact the names of all witnesses and victims in lawsuits and criminal proceedings.

Dave Roland, president and CEO of the Freedom Center of Missouri, represents the plaintiffs. He said these restrictions severely limit the news media's ability to effectively monitor the judicial system - which in turn harms the public. He added the law also has cost implications.

"The redaction requirement dramatically increases the cost of litigation, such that it is putting certain types of legal actions and certain motions beyond the financial capacity of a number of litigants," he said.

Roland added the plaintiffs agree that in some situations - involving children, or sexual assault - names should be kept private. But they contend a blanket law to redact all names violates both the Missouri and U.S. Constitutions.

The bill was spearheaded by Rep. Justin Hicks, R-St. Louis. A hearing date for the case has not yet been set.

Chad Mahoney, president and CEO the Missouri Broadcasters Association, voiced concerns about the law's impact on journalists' ability to report accurately.

"We support protecting those who need to be protected for their safety, but we think this goes way too far. It's making it very difficult for journalists to do their jobs and to fully inform the public," he continued.

Mahoney said historically, the courts have been the most open and transparent branch of government, and that has changed with some of these recent actions.


get more stories like this via email

O.J. Simpson's death has the nation looking back on the infamous murder trial that resulted in his acquittal. Experts say one of the lasting impacts is news coverage and how people consume it.

The lengthy trial proceedings from the mid-1990s were televised, setting a pathway for cameras in the courtroom.

Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota's Hubbard School of Journalism, said it also ushered in a cottage industry of pundits brought in to analyze the events of each day. That made it easier for people to get a recap during a 24-hour news cycle, but she added that there was a drawback to getting so much information through analysis.

"It also meant that people could suspend their critical thinking, to a certain extent," she said, "and I believe we're still seeing that today. The rise of social media has only made it easier."

However, she said it did expose issues with how criminal cases are handled, and viewers were able to see it firsthand. Given how the accessibility of information has exploded since the trial, Kirtley said, news consumers can't lose sight of the need to examine where they're getting it from. That includes whether the source is producing the news themselves, and if the details are being vetted.

Tessa Jolls, president and CEO of the Center for Media Literacy, said the trial firmly established entertainment as a core element of news coverage, making it profitable. She said outlets still have to reel people in with this approach to survive in a challenging landscape, but added that a sensationalized case such as this one sometimes helps with engagement in a positive way.

"They were seeing what the news organizations chose to show, and that gave people a chance to talk to each other and compare notes," she said. "In that sense, I think people probably did become savvier."

The trial also touched on racial issues and domestic violence, and Jolls said it was natural for people to have strong emotions about the developments. But she noted that it serves as a reminder for audiences to not let their gut feelings cloud how they weigh the facts presented to them.

"We need to see that our emotions are definitely present and that they may be swaying our thinking," she said, "and so, it's important to ask questions, to be skeptical."


get more stories like this via email