Does online media fill the gap left by newspapers?

Originally published September 2008, when online media was expected to replace newspapers. Updated January 2026 after eighteen years proved the prediction correct: online left a gaping hole.

The prediction: Online would leave a gap

In 2008, an article in the Australian newspaper: The winter of journalism's content argued that online publishing, which was widely expected to supplant newspapers and magazines, would only go so far in replacing them and leave a gaping hole.

The concern was specific: The economics of online publishing wouldn't generate enough money to pay for in-depth investigations, hard news, and the accountability journalism that democracies need.

This worried me then. It should worry us more now.

The 2008 argument was straightforward: Advertisers were abandoning print for online, attracted by cost-effectiveness and perceived targetability.

Yet those online advertisers preferred placing messages next to "niche interest stories"—car ads next to driving features, travel ads next to vacation content—not next to investigations of government corruption or corporate malfeasance.

Even if publishers could fund hard news, advertisers wouldn't want it. The perverse incentive was clear: publish less accountability journalism, more marketable fluff.

However, traditionally it was those difficult, hard news stories sold printed newspapers and dragged in readers in the first place. The hard news delivered readers to the publication.

Eighteen years later: The gap is real

By 2026, the prediction proved accurate—though not uniformly. The landscape fragmented:

Where investigative journalism survived:

• Elite national outlets: The New York Times, Washington Post and Guardian continue to invest in investigations, funded by digital subscriptions. They hire investigative teams and break major stories.
• Nonprofit models: ProPublica, founded in 2007, proved investigations could be foundation-funded. Local nonprofit newsrooms emerged in dozens of US cities.
• Specialist outlets: Sites focusing on specific beats (healthcare, environment, national security) found niche audiences willing to pay.

Where it died:

• Local newspapers: The papers that held city councils, school boards and local businesses accountable have largely disappeared. Local journalism collapsed, and with it, local accountability.
• Regional coverage: Mid-sized papers that once investigated state governments, large corporations and regional issues cut investigative teams first when ad revenue collapsed.
• Specialist niches: Coverage of courts, local government, education and civic institutions evaporated in many markets.

The gap wasn't filled—it was papered over with press releases, wire service copy and user-generated content.

The economics that created the hole

The 2008 prediction about advertising economics proved devastatingly accurate:

Print advertising collapsed: Between 2008 and 2026, newspaper print advertising revenue fell by approximately 90%. Digital advertising revenue grew, but never came close to replacing what was lost.

Online advertising favors fluff: The algorithm-driven ad market rewards engagement and scale, not importance. Publishers learned that listicles, celebrity news and viral content generated far more ad revenue per dollar invested than months-long investigations.

The "adjacent ad" problem persisted: Advertisers still don't want their brands next to stories about corruption, crime or corporate wrongdoing. This "brand safety" concern systematically draws money away from accountability journalism.

Subscription models helped some, not all: Publishers who built subscription businesses could fund investigations. But this created a second digital divide—only affluent readers accessed in-depth accountability journalism.

What online actually provided

Online media did fill some gaps, just not the crucial ones:

What multiplied:

• Opinion and commentary (cheap to produce, often of no value)
• Aggregation and curation (repackaging others' work)
• Breaking news alerts (fast, shallow updates)
• Niche hobby coverage (enthusiast bloggers)
• Citizen journalism (valuable but inconsistent)
• Viral content and entertainment news

What vanished:

• Specialist reporters with 20 years of institutional knowledge
• Newspaper librarians who provided context and verification
• Investigative teams spending months on complex stories
• Court reporters attending every trial
• Government reporters tracking legislation - there is still some coverage, but reduced and shallower than in the past
• Local government watchdogs at every city council meeting

The volume of online content exploded. The volume of accountability journalism contracted.

Alternative models that emerged

The gap wasn't filled, but some models showed promise:

1. Nonprofit newsrooms:
In the US, ProPublica, The Texas Tribune, Voice of San Diego and dozens of others proved foundation funding could sustain investigations. But this model:

• Relies on philanthropic priorities (not public priorities)
• Doesn't scale to every community. There is no equivalent in New Zealand
• Creates dependence on wealthy funders

2. Membership models:
Sites like The Guardian's voluntary contributions and De Correspondent's member-funded journalism showed readers would support quality work. But subscription fatigue limited how many outlets could pursue this. The Guardian's needy begging is so tiresome it turns readers off what could be a useful site.

I'm open to contributions on this site, but prefer not to be a pain about asking. I'f you are interested, see the banner at the top of this page.

3. Hybrid models:
Public radio expanded into digital, combining listener support, foundation grants and some advertising. Both the UK's BBC and New Zealand's RNZ run credible online news operations. In the US, universities launched investigative centres. Some success, but not comprehensive and nothing of the sort in New Zealand.

4. Individual journalist brands:
Substack and similar oneline let individual reporters build subscriber bases. Independent journalists broke stories—but without institutional support for legal, research and editing. In New Zealand Bernard Hickey maintains a lively news focused site with a model that sees his most important stories made available to non subscribers.

But despite all these efforts, none replaced the comprehensive accountability coverage newspapers once provided.

The democratic deficit

Here's what society lost:

Local corruption goes uncovered: Without reporters at city council meetings, local officials face less scrutiny. Small-scale corruption and poor governance that affects citizens' daily lives—zoning decisions, contract awards, police conduct—happens in darkness.

Corporate power unchecked: Complex investigations of corporate behaviour—wage theft, environmental violations, financial fraud—require resources few outlets can deploy. Companies know this and act accordingly. Also there is an asymmetry when it comes to access to the law, news organisations can rarely afford to defend litigation even when they are clearly in the right.

Government opacity increases: Without specialist reporters who know the territory, government press releases become "news." Official narratives face less challenge. One phrase that comes up whenever officials are questioned on such statements is "just use the press release".

Civic knowledge declines: Citizens can't effectively participate in democracy if they don't know what's happening in their communities. The information divide became a democratic participation divide.

As predicted in 2008: "this vicious economic cycle is nothing compared to what can happen in a society that no longer has a practical mechanism for scrutinising governments and out-of-control corporations."

By 2026, many communities have no such mechanism.

Could it have been different?

Looking back, newspapers missed opportunities. Some alternative paths:

Earlier investment in reader relationships: Publishers who built direct subscriber relationships in the early 2000s—before social media dominated—preserved more of their audience and funding for accountability work.

Collaborative models: Had newspapers pooled resources for investigations rather than competing, they might have maintained more capacity. Some collaborations have emerged, but too late.

Public funding: Other democracies subsidise journalism more directly. The US and New Zealand largely didn't. Whether that would have worked remains debated, but private markets clearly failed to fund adequate accountability journalism.

Different priorities: Publishers chasing unsustainable profit margins cut investigations first. Had they prioritised accountability over quarterly returns, things could have been different.

None of these guaranteed success. But what actually happened—allowing market forces alone to determine what journalism survives—left democracy worse off.

The 2026 reality

The 2008 prediction was right: online media didn't fill the gap newspapers left.

We have more content than ever. We have less accountability journalism than we need.

We have viral videos and hot takes. We have fewer reporters at government meetings.

We have elite national outlets doing excellent work. We have local information deserts.

The gaping hole remains, and it's affecting how democracy functions. Eighteen years proved the concern valid. The question now is whether we'll do anything about it.

More on journalism and media:

This post is part of ongoing coverage about journalism business models, democratic accountability and the information gap:

• Online paywalls vs print: Why readers resist
• Apple's iPad won't save newspapers
• Dealing with the pay wall economy
• Why I'm a technology and business writer, not a geek
• Old school journalism writing habits are powerful tools
• Old school newspaper librarians are sorely missed