For the past several weeks, I have gotten countless notifications from news outlets detailing the newest action from the Trump administration that systematically discredits news sources. From targeting the Associated Press for referring to the Gulf of Mexico as such — instead of President Donald Trump’s newly minted “Gulf of America” — to investigating NPR and PBS with the goal of ending their government subsidies, the Trump administration is interfering in the press’ ability to report critically on his policies.
News organizations serve as a check on the government, reporting on and occasionally criticizing decisions in order to hold the government accountable to the people. By continually discrediting news sources, Trump is telling his supporters to stop putting their trust in institutions that have a democratic duty to hold him in check. And it has worked: In 2024, 33% of U.S. adults reported having little trust in mass media while 36% of Americans reported having no trust at all. But while Trump is speeding up the process, his rhetoric alone did not spark the downfall in media trust. Since the 1990s, Americans have consistently reported rising rates of distrust in the media. I attribute this loss of trust to the decline of local news.
Local news sources have slowly eroded away in the past few decades. Over 2,100 local newspapers have closed since 2004 and over 200 counties in the United States have no local news source, with an additional 200+ at high risk of losing their local news organizations. I blame this erosion on Gannett. The owner of USA Today, Gannett is a corporation that merged with GateHouse Media in 2019, which jointly controlled hundreds of local papers across the country. Since the merger, the company has sold off, closed down and merged these local papers, leaving news deserts in hundreds of communities, including right here in Medford, until Gotta Know Medford’s kick-off this year. Gannett’s merger put a nail in the coffin of an already struggling local news industry, which was already feeling the rising costs of print and declining readership.
The lack of local news is correlated with lower voter turnout, less knowledge about candidates, lower civic engagement within communities, more governmental corruption, more government waste and more political polarization. Local news is a check against government policies as well as a community-building tool, and the disappearance of these newspapers leaves people without either. Now, in a political climate where Trump is effectively tearing down the national news landscape, which I believe would replicate the negative effects we see with the loss of local news nationwide, the fight to keep news organizations alive and shielded from governmental interference is all the more vital. A free press at both the local and national level is essential.
Now, I’m sure you’re wondering: What does any of this have to do with the Daily?
The Daily holds a very unique position within our news landscape. As an institution present on Tufts campus for 45 years, the Daily has published hard-hitting journalism, including in-depth research into Tufts University’s relationship with Saudi Arabia and constant coverage of the Students for Justice in Palestine encampment last spring alongside fun satirical editions of the print paper. The Daily has been able to expand its coverage over the years, which couldn’t happen if Tufts students didn’t engage with its content. So how, in an environment where news is distrusted by many, has The Tufts Daily gained the trust of the student body and earned its mantra: “Where you read it first?”
Firstly, institutional independence. The Tufts Daily, while affiliated with the university, is completely self-funded. It receives no money from the Tufts Community Union, which allows the Daily to publish articles that paint the university in an unbiased light. Readers can trust that the articles they’re reading aren’t being regulated by the larger institution.
Secondly, transparency about journalistic practices. The Daily has made an effort to inform the student body about its policies pertaining to ethics. In an op-ed published last week, the Ethics & Inclusion Committee of the Daily clarified how Daily journalists will conduct interviews within the Tufts community, explained sourcing practices and provided information to help keep students safe from immigration crackdowns. The Daily maintains an open dialogue with the Tufts community about how the paper can build and maintain trust.
Thirdly, the people. The Daily is a huge organization, with hundreds of members across editorial, production, business, the Ethics & Inclusion Committee and the Education Committee. I can personally attest to the fact that everyone I’ve met at the Daily is passionate about what they do, which leads to amazingly creative ventures happening all the time. It’s a great culture to work in.
Fourth, it’s local. The Daily essentially serves as a local paper would, except that the community is a campus, not a town or a city. This means that the Daily serves as a community-building organization, both for those involved and for Tufts at large. The Daily also makes a point to write about its host communities, with a special edition dedicated to them.
But the Daily isn’t perfect. While, as a consumer of news, I love the Daily, I have some concerns about the Daily’s editing process. The truth is, we’re all student volunteers. That means we aren’t professionals, and we are learning how to do this journalism thing as we go. Luckily, we have a lot of editorial checks done on an author’s work to ensure what’s being published is accurate. Fact-checking and article readability are checked at every stage of the editing process, with the final product having been seen by at least 3 to 4 editors. However, institutional checks on editors — to ensure the edits made are appropriate — are mostly completed by the managing board. Because the board is only made up of a few people who have many additional responsibilities, the checks they are supposed to complete can slip through the cracks.
I just went through an experience with the editing process gone wrong. Last week, I had an article published about Leonard Peltier, an Indigenous activist who was released from prison after almost 50 years. I wrote my article and received my edits —articles are sent back to opinion authors after two rounds of editing. Then, the article was looked over by section executive editors again and sent to the managing board for further editing — once an article gets to this step, the author doesn’t see it until publication. The next morning, my article was published with substantial issues. There was misinformation present, culturally specific acronyms were changed and factual content had been removed. Now some of these edits were understandable, such as the changing of acronyms, as it was done to comply with the AP Stylebook; even so, no article should contain misinformation. I went to the managing board to get the article taken down, but that didn’t happen. Instead, the article was re-edited without my approval, republished with no warning to readers about changes made and now my article misspelled the word “Indigenous.” I was finally able to get the article taken down a day later, but the underlying problem still needs addressing. Editing mistakes weren’t caught that should have been, which led to an article published under my name that was absolutely damaging to my credibility as an author.
My article was not the first time editing has gone sideways (this has unfortunately occurred in a previous article of mine about Indigenous issues), and I’m certain this won’t be the last. But luckily, institutions can change to address issues like this. In fact, it already has! In response to this whole ordeal, I have now been offered the opportunity to see my articles after the entire editing process is done to make sure this doesn’t happen again. I think the Daily should make this offer to all authors, especially for sections like Arts or Opinion where every word can matter for the argument being made. Instead of a reactionary measure, having authorial final checks could be a preventative measure. Implementing this, in my view, could further demonstrate the Daily’s commitment to factual accuracy and building community trust.
I want to reiterate: The Daily isn’t perfect. But if I didn’t hold trust in the Daily, I wouldn't be writing this article. Being able to criticize our institutions, both news and government, is a vital step in maintaining our democracy and building trust, one that Trump is actively trampling over. And as a local paper, the Daily has that much more of a responsibility, and a desire, to hear about things it can do better. As we look forward to the next 45 years, I am excited to see how the Daily adapts to community feedback and an ever-changing news landscape.
Here’s to 45 more!
