Martin Baron: Former Executive Editor of The Washington Post
Political pressures, ownership challenges, the rise of artificial intelligence, and economic constraints threaten the future of press freedom – and this threat is particularly pronounced in the United States, where these factors converge to fuel growing concern over the fate of an institution that has long been a cornerstone of democracies worldwide. At this year’s World Conference of the International Press Institute, Rachel Dana, Deputy Editor at Project Syndicate, engaged in a dialogue with Martin Baron, the former executive editor of The Washington Post, regarding the current state of journalism and its future.
Project Syndicate: You mentioned that the fundamental mission of journalism is to hold powerful institutions accountable. In today’s climate, where media owners – especially in the United States – fear political retribution, how can editorial independence be maintained?
Martin Baron: Journalists must uphold their editorial independence. This is the first point: they should not concede anything and must clarify that their job is to report what is happening – what the government is doing, and what powerful institutions and individuals in their country are doing, for better or worse. The essence of our mission is to hold those in power accountable and to listen to those who do not have anyone to hear them. The alternative is to become mere scribes or advocates.
James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers and a primary advocate for the U.S. Constitution, spoke about the importance of “scrutiny” of public figures and government actions. I focus on the word “scrutiny” because it means investigation, examination, and assessment – the opposite of boilerplate and propaganda. The founders of America wanted checks on power to prevent corruption and abuse of power, and we must rise to that challenge.
However, ownership remains a weakness in media. There is no perfect ownership model; all come with pressures, especially when owners have other business interests. These pressures have increased since Donald Trump’s return to the White House this year, as he has become willing and eager to target those interests. Owners who capitulate do a disservice to the journalists who work for them and to democracy itself. Their primary goal should be to defend the rights that enabled their media institutions to exist in the first place.
Project Syndicate: You stated that there is no perfect ownership model, and based on your experience after Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s purchase of The Washington Post, you are keenly aware of this. But are there alternative models? Should media be profit-driven? Or should they be closer to public utilities?
Baron: I haven’t seen anything promising enough. Joseph Stiglitz talked at the World Conference of the International Press Institute about the possibility of government funding, but I consider that a dangerous trap. Public media in the United States has received government funding, and Trump used that to punish them. Trump and his allies will use government funding as a lever, while we need, conversely, to eliminate potential sources of pressure so we can operate independently. This requires finding a way to be self-sustaining, whether as a nonprofit organization or as a commercial media outlet.
Many independent media organizations around the world, operating in difficult environments, have received support from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Now that the agency has closed, this aid has ceased, leading to a significant crisis for them. There are institutions funded by charitable organizations, but that funding has also started to dry up, especially for media operating in exile or in countries like El Salvador, Venezuela, and Myanmar.
Imagine if American media relied on government funding. In that case, Trump would insist that they adhere to the standards he sets, just as he does with universities and schools. His standard for media is that it should be a propaganda arm for him. He does not want free and independent journalism; for him, “legitimate” journalism is merely that which echoes his words verbatim.
Project Syndicate: Based on your experience leading The Washington Post during Trump’s first term, what do you think journalism succeeded at, and where did it fail to cover adequately? How do you assess the current coverage of his second term?
Baron: Overall, journalism has done an excellent job, both during his first term and now. We learned a lot about what was happening inside his first administration, and we knew most of it at the time, and we know more today. The same is happening now: every day there is a new report revealing something about how this administration operates.
The journalists working on the front lines, along with their editors, are committed to holding the government accountable, knowing what it is actually doing, who influences it, and how its policies affect people. I have deep respect for them.
However, the real failure during Trump’s first term occurred before he became a candidate. We did not understand America well enough. We did not spend enough time listening to people across the country and interpreting their grievances to others.
We are still not doing that well enough. Journalism must be a bridge between communities and help to understand what others are going through. This requires coverage that bears no trace of disdain or superiority but is rooted in true empathy.
We must also remember that most people do not spend their days thinking about politics or democracy; they are focused on making a living, ensuring a good education for their children, and maintaining adequate healthcare. We must understand why they feel these issues are under threat.
Project Syndicate: How should journalists cover populist leaders who seek to delegitimize the media? How can they maintain neutrality when one side is clearly lying?
Baron: I have always been a proponent of the concept of “objectivity” in journalism, although it raises concerns for some. But I believe it has been misunderstood. What I mean by objectivity is that the journalist starts their work acknowledging that they do not know everything. That’s why we conduct investigations. The goal is to learn what we do not know.
Objectivity means humility, acknowledging what we do not know, and being willing to learn. But it does not mean always presenting “two equal views.” If the evidence leans one way, we must say that instead of pretending that the truth is 50-50. We can only assert the truth after thorough investigation.
“Truth” is a big word, so I hesitate to use it. The goal is to get as close as possible to reality and understand the facts. We look at the world through a keyhole; we see very little, but sometimes we can push the door a little to see something bigger, and sometimes we succeed in opening it fully.
Project Syndicate: With the rise of influencers and content creators… what impact does this have on the future of journalism?
Baron: I’m not clinging to traditional ways. Technology has changed the way people consume information, and thus the way it is delivered. This has created a whole system of influencers, content creators, YouTubers, and podcasters. The most important principle for everyone is “verification.” Is the information accurate? Or misleading?
Sharing unverified information is an irresponsible act. We must rely on sources that have proven credibility. And note that when a natural disaster strikes, people immediately turn to traditional media for information.
Project Syndicate: What about generative AI? What are its risks and opportunities?
Baron: It’s always easier to sound wise when saying everything is bad. AI is an incredibly powerful tool and can benefit journalism a lot, such as analyzing vast data, identifying weapons in airstrikes, and uncovering what has happened in conflict zones.
But its risks are immense. It facilitates the forgery of images, video, and audio. You can hear a perfect imitation of someone’s voice. People may believe that. Or they may reach a stage where they lose the ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood. This is a serious threat to democracy.
Project Syndicate: What necessary reforms are needed to protect press freedom?
Baron: It must be emphasized that freedom of expression is not exclusive to journalism. It is a right for everyone. Many corporate executives have become afraid to speak. We need a broad coalition to defend freedom of expression.
We still have judges defending these rights, and this is what nations should aspire to: constitutional protection for freedom of expression, an independent judiciary, and governments that respect that.
Project Syndicate: What lessons can emerging democracies learn?
Baron: You cannot declare yourself a democracy and then stop. Institutions are what protect democracy, and Trump tries to tear them down. But they still exist, and they still resist. This is the lesson: protecting the independence of institutions and not taking them for granted.
Project Syndicate: Many blame journalism for crises and claim it has failed. Is this a fair critique?
Baron: Most of this criticism comes from people who claim journalism is ineffective but then blame it for the results! In 2016, they said we didn’t uncover enough about Trump, even though we published a full series of investigations about him that later turned into the book Trump Revealed. Many people either didn’t read or didn’t consider those facts important at the time.
Project Syndicate: And how can audiences, especially young people, be engaged?
Baron: I don’t think we communicate in the way people want to receive information. People read less and consume content audibly and visually. Journalists need to learn to produce short videos. Most people won’t read a ten-thousand-word story, but they might watch a minute-long clip.
