Truth was optional, if not an actual hindrance.

MoJo Reader, I'll always be a reporter at heart. And so as I sat down to explain why we need to raise $400,000—our biggest goal ever—during our December pledge drive, I realized I wanted to really dig into all the reasons. If you already know you want Mother Jones to keep on doing hard-hitting journalism that tells it like it is, please [join us with a tax-deductible, year-end donation right now](. We'd be grateful. But if you want the big picture, here's the upshot of my deep dive—"[It's the End of News as We Know It (And Facebook Is Feeling Fine)]("—about the state of media and Mother Jones' priorities for the year ahead. It starts on November 6, 2014, when a then-30-year-old Mark Zuckerberg announced Facebook was aiming to be the "perfect personalized newspaper." This was a big deal. The social network seemed to recognize it was in the media business, and we all hoped that might be good for the rest of the media. It certainly was for Mother Jones: Some 1.5 million readers each month found our stories from Facebook before the shift, and that soon shot up to 5 million. For a nonprofit like MoJo, with a marketing budget of exactly $0, that reach and revenue was huge. It was good for Facebook, too, because now, as we all liked and shared more content than ever, it could collect more and more data so advertisers could target content in astonishingly precise ways, to anyone from RC hobbyists to self-described "Jew-haters." There is no pesky human judgment involved in this equation, just the algorithm and its endless capacity to aggregate people's predilections and auction them to the highest bidder. One result is that, with Facebook and Google controlling around 60 percent of all digital advertising (and other platforms sucking up much of the rest), publishers have struggled for revenue. The number of working journalists has been cut in half in the last decade, and local and investigative shops have suffered the most—MoJo was able to weather that storm only because [support from our readers makes up more than two-thirds of our budget](. But a shrinking Fourth Estate was only part of the problem—the other was the parallel rise in junk news and propaganda. As the platforms pumped headlines and ads into your feed, truth was optional, if not an actual hindrance: The more shocking a headline, the more engaging (and thus, the more valuable) it was. With the arrival of Donald Trump, the nightmare scenario for weaponizing social media was complete. Facebook (and the other platforms, particularly Twitter) helped Trump spread hate and fear because it was lucrative for them, and they washed their hands of the effects because "technology is neutral"—Silicon Valley's version of "guns don't kill people." To this day, Zuckerberg keeps insisting Facebook is just a place for "lots of opinions," and that encompasses journalism, as if a verified investigation exists on the same level as a made-up meme. There are facts and "alternative facts," you know? Even former Facebook insiders have made clear that polarization is not an accident of this system—it's "key to the model." The angrier and more dug-in you are, the more lucrative you are for the platforms. But contrary to conventional wisdom, the biggest split is not between left and right—it's between those committed to facts and those manipulated by propaganda. Which brings me back to Mother Jones, and our big $400,000 fundraising goal this month. Because earlier this year, facing intense pressure and scrutiny, Zuckerberg delivered a sucker punch to journalism: Now, Facebook's algorithm would simply show less news altogether. That's why you're seeing more of your friends' photos (yay—probably?) and a lot less factual information: Even if you follow Mother Jones on Facebook, for example, you'll notice far fewer of our articles make it into your feed. Bottom line: People are getting a lot less news, right at a time when a clear-eyed accounting of what the powerful are doing is more important than ever. And making things worse, that decline in audience translates directly into more economic struggles for news organizations: Here at Mother Jones in particular, the decline in revenue from decreased Facebook traffic adds up to around $400,000 a year. We need to cover that gap and sustain the newsroom we've built, now that the work is more urgent than ever. Readers have stepped up to help us build a bigger, even harder-hitting organization, and we hope you'll stick with us as we take on the incredible challenge of this moment. Support from a broad range of people—not a single deep-pocketed donor or corporate parent—is what defines Mother Jones, and what we could not survive without. It protects us from the booms and busts of the markets. It keeps us accountable to exactly whom we should be accountable to: Not hedge funders or billionaires (even benevolent ones), but hundreds of thousands of people who are committed to a vibrant democracy and the free, fearless press it requires. Because of you, Mother Jones is strong enough to withstand the whims of an algorithm, and to stand firm when the targets of our investigations scream "fake news." So if you're reading this far down, I know you care a great deal about our democracy and the challenges we face. And I hope you'll [join us with a tax-deductible, year-end donation today](. Thanks for reading, and for everything you do to make Mother Jones what it is. Monika Bauerlein, CEO Mother Jones [DONATE]( --------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent to {EMAIL}. To stop receiving Mother Jones' fundraising and subscription emails, or manage your preferences for our emails, click [here](. --------------------------------------------------------------- [www.MotherJones.com]() 222 Sutter Street, #600 San Francisco, CA USA 94108