For most of the twentieth century, institutions whose authority rested on nonpartisan expertise influenced America’s public sphere through a top-down communications model. Think tanks, modern universities, and social and advocacy organizations produced writing and research aimed at policymakers and elites. Public communication was seen as the last stage of the process. Press releases alerted a relatively manageable set of high-profile outlets to new writings. Carefully crafted content passed through media gatekeepers who determined what deserved public attention. Through op-eds, Sunday talk shows, and briefings, experts could bring their work to the attention of politicians, executives, and other decisionmakers who could act on their ideas. The public—especially the educated and politically engaged—could be reached through a relatively small number of channels.
Even as cable news expanded and partisan outlets like Fox News emerged, this approach held: Institutions created, gatekeepers validated, audiences consumed. The top-down, centralized approach rewarded polish, institutional prestige, and insider relationships with gatekeepers. A high degree of shared trust gave credence to the choices of the gatekeepers; legitimacy was communicated through successful participation in this hierarchy.
That system has collapsed.
Today, public attention flows through a far more diffuse, competitive ecosystem—one where influence is shaped by networks rather than hierarchies. The old gatekeepers have been replaced by new ones: algorithms that curate content, high-follower social media accounts that influence what goes viral, and deeply engaged niche creators who enjoy immense legitimacy within their communities. The newly influential are not simply broadcasters at the top of a different hierarchical order—they determine what content matters in conjunction with active, participating audiences. Legitimacy is now conferred on those who master resonance, immediacy, emotional connection, and authenticity.
Organizations and scholars grounded in fact-based argumentation—and the philanthropists and advocates who support research-backed policy influence—must grapple with this shift. There are, of course, still influential people who consume traditional media. Reports and op-eds still matter in elite technocratic circles (especially if they lean left). Headlines from legacy media show up in TikTok videos and social media newsfeeds. President Donald Trump is still significantly influenced by Fox News, even though he also engages with his social media audience. Yet even politicians and policymakers who favor major newspapers or television channels for their own information are influenced by, and must reason with, constituencies who inhabit a fundamentally different media ecosystem.
Institutions working on issues that depend on mass public support must adapt to today’s media environment—or risk irrelevance.
Public attention has shifted decisively. Institutions working on issues that depend on mass public support must adapt to today’s media environment—or risk irrelevance. Too often, scholars and advocates have tried to engage in new media using old media habits that are ill-suited to the medium. Some believe themselves exempt from having to engage on new media at all, assuming that esoteric or technical fields insulate them from this transformation in influence. But recent history—on issues ranging from public health to climate to foreign aid to security policy—shows how quickly expert domains can become contested online battlegrounds. Institutions unprepared or slow to engage have repeatedly been outflanked by bad-faith actors who were weak on facts but had superior communication tactics.
To avoid being sidelined just when they are needed most, experts and nonpartisan analysts must rethink not just their channels of communication but also their theory of influence.
In this paper, we discuss several aspects of how influence has transformed and how institutional and expert communicators might adapt. The first section explains the transformation of the media ecosystem and four major shifts that led legacy media to lose ground—including significant alterations to how credibility is conveyed. The following section discusses how social media influencers with large audiences are not simply new gatekeepers broadcasting to their followers but are more akin to community conveners, working with their audiences to make sense of the world and decide what is true together. The third section discusses how institutions and experts are largely absent from this process and why that matters for democracy and consensus. The concluding section offers five strategic recommendations for institutions and philanthropists to begin the urgent process of engaging with this new media environment.