"We Trust the Algorithm More Than An Editor"
A student comment sparks a lot of discussion (and a new Substack)
I teach an undergraduate class on media and foreign policy. Last semester during a class on public trust in journalism, we covered Pew Research’s November 2024 jaw-dropper of a survey showing that one in five Americans (and 37% of adults under 30) regularly get news from social media influencers.
One of my students - Gen Z, smart, interning at a prominent DC media outlet - casually remarked “that makes total sense to me.” Gesturing at her nodding classmates, she added “Younger people trust algorithms that we’ve cultivated and fed into for years way more than some editor in New York or DC gatekeeping what we see.”
That casual observation was actually a rich text: about generational divides, rapid technological change, how hard it is to build trust (and how easily it’s lost), and how well-meaning, smart people can get lost or buried in an information avalanche.
I’ve described this exchange to dozens of people in media, comms, and politics since last fall, and it’s sparked a huge range of reactions. A think tank expert on the Middle East shook his head and lamented younger generations’ lack of critical thinking (and scoffed when I noted the same study showed audiences believe news influencers help them better understand current events and civic issues). One DC reporter lambasted content creators “repackaging actual journalism,” and another bemoaned his outlet’s inconsistent attempts to play on this new turf.
There’s been plenty of concern that audiences may not understand how social media algorithms incentivize content that evokes strong emotions, or can be artificially manipulated to serve particular narratives. Or, going deeper, the different ways a private American company versus a Chinese state-owned company manipulate those algorithms and their audiences.
Democrats with whom I shared my students’ comments ruefully acknowledge missing how the information environment had changed before the 2024 U.S. elections but admit that their limited steps to adapt since have been halting (at best). My former White House colleague Rob Flaherty agreed in the New York Times earlier this week that “thanks to algorithms and an endless set of media choices, what you see, read and hear is a personalized reflection of your own interests.”1 And the Republicans mostly shrug and say “yeah…?” as if I’d breathlessly shared that politics is, like, actually about power.
My own reaction (beyond pride in my student for raising something so fascinating we’re still examining it months later) is that the upending of traditional media and opinion-shapers creates opportunities for new voices, sources, and ideas - but that making sense of today’s information space is a huge individual and collective challenge for which most of us are unprepared.
That’s why one of my goals with Spin Class is to help people make sense of their information spaces: why we’re seeing what we’re seeing, what’s the backstory, how powerful people use comms tools to advance an agenda or sell you something. But my brainstorm Google Doc also has newsletter ideas like building community trust when there’s no local news, Germany’s approach to historical memory, “objectivity” in the age of authoritarianism, and You Have a Policy Problem, Not a Comms Problem. This is bigger than any one President or administration, even one that’s fucking things up as spectacularly as Trump is.2
I’ll also have regular interviews with people doing new things in journalism and comms (including an influencer interview next week that you don’t want to miss). I welcome your ideas - who is shaking things up in comms and media that you want to hear from? What are we not talking about that we should be talking about?
Most of all, I want Spin Class to be thought-provoking. A virtual dinner party with fascinating guests debating the differences between Chinese and Russian disinformation tactics, but also what the Blake Lively/Justin Baldoni PR war says about gender, power, and weaponizing the media.3 With seats at the table for TikTok, peer review, and (almost) everything in between. I love a great behind-the-scenes story full of logistics, non-obvious good-faith takes, em-dashes, and cringe Millennial memes, so expect plenty of these.
If this sounds interesting to you, please subscribe and share. And thank you! I’m excited to be here and hope you are, too.
Special thanks to my informal Substack cabinet members Charlotte Clymer, Katie Harbath, Sasha Ingber, Elise Labott, and Ben Wittes, and of course to Hamish McKenzie and Catherine Valentine. Per all your instructions, I sat down and wrote the damn thing.
Depending on where you think of Trump’s first 100 days “fucking things up” is either a profound indictment or a cheering compliment. I fall into the first camp, but the fact there’s opposite interpretations of the same words is a big part of how we got here.
Ignore the rich texts of pop culture at your peril, friends. When I started workshopping Spin Class last year, my initial target pitch was “Were you in a group chat that blew up over the Kate Middleton Photoshop scandal? Welcome home.”
Excited for this!
Thank you for this! I’ve worked on a number of Democratic campaigns, including most recently the Harris campaign. One of the lessons I feel that I learned from 2024 — and that too few others have learned yet — is that bemoaning the rise of new media and the corresponding decline of mainstream media is kind of pointless at this point. It’s happening whether it’s good or bad, and we on the left simply need to accept that we have to adapt to this new media environment as it is or we will continue to get crushed. Interested to read future posts!