Before the arrival of the internet, most journalism was produced in pretty well-off advertising businesses. The proximity of money and public interest journalism was often a source of tension, but rarely rupture. Every now and then you’d read something about the public’s right to know and sardonic journos would moan that “serving the public interest” really meant filling spaces between ads.
Advertising doesn’t pay any more – or more accurately it pays the likes of Google, Facebook and almost no one else. Space for “content” online is endless, but so is the torrent of misinformation. Cleaved from the funding it needs to survive, journalism has been freed to rethink what serving the public interest actually means.
At The Conversation we have given this a lot of thought, in part because we do journalism so differently. We only work with academic experts. We prize accuracy and trust above all else. We aim to serve our readers by giving them quality information with no other agenda than helping them be better informed.
This doesn’t always involve reporting on a high-profile court case or investigating corruption, as vital as that work is. Good information about nutrition is vital to deciding what to buy at the supermarket. Good information about how COVID-19 spreads is vital so people know how to protect themselves and each other. We know the damage that can be done when bad information spreads about a topic as important as vaccination.
So here’s my definition of public interest journalism: providing reliable and accurate information to those who need it most. At The Conversation it could be an article modelling the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, or the latest research on endometriosis. At the Sydney Morning Herald it might be a political column or an investigation of public corruption.
Because we see serving the public interest as being the core of what we do, we make sure everything we publish is free. In fact, we give our work away to other media outlets. We want to support a healthy media ecosystem and ensure expert research and analysis gets the biggest possible audience.
We think this is the right approach, but it does have one drawback: it makes it harder to fund our work. This is why each year we turn to readers and ask those of you who value our work to make a contribution.
If you can donate, please do so, and thank you to all the wonderful and public-spirited readers who have already donated.
And to the dozens of people who got in touch in recent days to say they love reading The Conversation but aren’t able to donate – no worries and you’re welcome. It’s great you value our work, especially now we’re finally out of the business of filling spaces between the ads.


Berkshire Hathaway Eyes Bigger Stakes in Japan’s Top Trading Houses
Cathie Wood Backs AI Slowdown as Safety Concerns Grow
Z.AI Shares Slide 7% After $5 Billion Fundraising
Ex-Google DeepMind Researcher Warns AI Could Pose Existential Threat
US Court Approves airBaltic Chapter 11 Restructuring
Samsung Heavy Wins $1.22 Billion LNG Carrier and Tanker Deal
SK Hynix, Intel Discuss U.S. Memory Chip Production Deal
Anthropic Eyes Second Straight Profitable Quarter Ahead of Potential IPO
Trip.com Shares Rise as Q2 Earnings Beat Estimates
Syngenta Files for Hong Kong IPO, Eyes $5 Billion Raise
Qualcomm Gains on $60B Amazon AI Chip Deal
Meta CEO Zuckerberg Backs Independent AI Safety Reviews Over Development Slowdown
BHP Port Hedland Wage Dispute Heads to Arbitration
LVMH-Hermès Dispute Deepens Over Secret 2002 Share Deal
France Urges Faster AI Push Despite Safety Risks
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Expected at Trump-Xi State Dinner 



