Dak’s Take: Journalism’s shiny object problem

The Reynolds Journalism Institute recently highlighted a case study from Missouri Business Alert, which spent a year experimenting with Nextdoor for News, the local social platform’s program for surfacing professional journalism inside neighborhood feeds.

The write-up was measured. The lessons were practical. The framing was the kind of careful, fellowship-grade reporting the Missouri School of Journalism does well.

None of that is the problem.

The problem is the pattern. Every few years, the news industry encounters another platform that wants its content for a while, and a meaningful slice of the business convinces itself, quietly or otherwise, that this time the partnership might add up to something durable.

It rarely does. And the reasons it rarely does have not changed in close to two decades.

Dak’s Take: Local broadcasters are bleeding trust while ‘news influencers’ gain voice

The cycle is familiar enough to memorize

Anyone who has been in or around a newsroom since roughly 2008 has watched some version of this play out. Facebook pages were going to rebuild the audience relationship. Then Facebook video. Then Instant Articles. Then the pivot to video itself, encouraged by metrics that turned out to be generous in ways that later required legal settlements.

Twitter, before it became X, was treated as essential distribution infrastructure. Snapchat Discover was going to deliver younger audiences. Google AMP was going to win mobile. TikTok was going to be the next front door.

YouTube has been positioned, more than once, as the answer to declining cable and declining digital advertising at the same time.

Advertisement

Generative AI summaries and answer engines are the most recent variable, and the industry response has split between licensing deals and lawsuits, sometimes within the same company.

Now hyperlocal and community platforms, including Nextdoor, are entering the rotation.

Every cycle begins with a similar pitch for media organizations starved for new revenue sources…

Larger audience. Better discovery. Younger viewers. New monetization. Audience growth at scale. And every cycle eventually arrives at the same point of friction, which is that platform priorities change because platforms are businesses with their own incentives.

The incentives were never the same

This is the part that gets glossed over in many internal strategy decks.

Nextdoor, as a public company, needs engagement, retention, local relevance and advertising inventory it can sell at a higher average revenue per user. Surfacing professional local journalism inside the feed serves those goals. It is a reasonable business decision for Nextdoor.

It is not a charitable one, and the company has not framed it as one.

News organizations, meanwhile, need subscriptions, direct audience relationships, loyalty, sustainable revenue and reader trust that compounds over time. Those goals overlap with a distribution partnership temporarily. They are not the same goals.

The platforms are not villains in this story.

Facebook deprioritizing news after 2020 was a rational decision for Facebook, which concluded that news content generated disproportionate moderation cost relative to engagement. Meta blocking news links in Canada in response to the Online News Act was a rational decision for Meta. Google testing AI-generated answers that reduce outbound clicks to publishers is a rational decision for Google.

The recurring strategic error sits on the other side of the table. It is the habit of treating temporary distribution alignment as if it were long-term strategic alignment.

Distribution is not a product

Step back from any single partnership and a larger pattern shows up.

Advertisement

A meaningful share of the industry still operates as if the survival question is fundamentally a distribution question.

Find the next funnel. Get in front of the next audience. Ride the next algorithm before it changes. The implicit theory is that audiences will arrive if the pipes are wide enough.

The harder theory, the one that requires more capital and more patience, is that audiences arrive and return when there is something specific worth arriving for. A better app. A newsletter people open without prompting. A local utility function nobody else provides. A streaming product. A FAST channel with actual programming logic behind it. Personality-driven reporting that travels by name. Explainer franchises. Niche beats covered with real depth. Memberships that mean something. Events that anchor a community.

Habits that form because the product earned them.

Borrowed reach is seductive because building direct relationships is slower, harder and more expensive. It is also the only version of the work that the publisher controls at the end.

None of this means ignoring platforms

A fair counterargument runs through any honest version of this conversation.

Local news organizations are under real pressure. Audiences are fragmented across more surfaces than any single newsroom can staff. Social distribution still matters, sometimes a lot. Walking away from major platforms entirely is not a strategy any commercial newsroom can adopt, and the smaller the newsroom, the less realistic the ambitious-product alternative becomes.

The Missouri Business Alert experiment, in that light, is exactly the kind of structured test the industry needs more of. A year, a defined scope, documented findings, lessons shared publicly through RJI. That is responsible experimentation, and it is different from the strategic posture this column is questioning.

The posture worth questioning is the one in which a newsroom, or an entire segment of the industry, emotionally and operationally overcommits to a platform partnership and quietly defers the harder work of building something it owns.

The question that keeps getting deferred

Strip away the platform of the moment and the unresolved question is the same one it has been for years.

Advertisement

What actually makes an audience intentionally return to a local news organization in 2026?

Not because a feed surfaced a headline. Not because an algorithm decided the user might engage. Not because a partnership temporarily boosted referral traffic. But because the reader, viewer or listener decided the product was worth the trip on its own.

That question does not have a clean answer, and pretending otherwise would be its own kind of shiny object. Different markets will answer it differently. Different newsrooms have different starting points. Some of the answers will involve platforms, used carefully and on defined terms.

But the future of local journalism probably will not be decided by whichever platform currently wants news content in its feed. It will be decided by whether news organizations can build products, habits and relationships strong enough that audiences seek them out directly.

Every cycle, the industry gets another chance to start answering that question. Every cycle, a new partnership offers a reason to put it off a little longer.

Dak DillonDak Dillon is the Editor in Chief of NCS, where he has been covering broadcast technology, engineering and production for over 15 years. With practical industry experience, Dak's broadcast work has earned a Promax Gold Award and multiple regional Emmy nominations.

A journalism graduate from the Missouri School of Journalism, Dak has also been recognized by the Hearst Journalism Foundation.