The Atlantic Editor-In-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg warns newsroom decay is how 'democracy decomposes'

In an industry beset by challenges, The Atlantic is a rare bright spot.

The 167-year-old magazine announced this week that it will expand, bucking the trend among fellow legacy newsrooms. The Laurene Powell Jobs-owned and Jeffrey Goldberg-led publication said it will increase its print magazine to 12 issues, returning to a monthly cadence for the first time since 2002.

The increase comes after The Atlantic announced earlier this year it had surpassed 1 million subscriptions and returned to profitability.

We caught up with Goldberg this week and discussed The Atlantic’s success, its partnership with OpenAI, the 2024 election, and more. Below is the Q&A, lightly edited for clarity.

Why do you think you have been successful in this difficult climate?

We work very hard to produce only highest-quality journalism. Sometimes, we don't hit the mark, but not for lack of trying. Our operating theory is so simple. The only way to get people to pay for your product is to make a great product, something they can't find elsewhere. To do this, we have to have the best journalists. Readers become our subscribers when they realize that they will find illuminating and delightful stories, written by journalists at the very top of their game, on a regular basis.

How worried are you about the decline we are seeing transpire in many legacy newsrooms? And what effect will that have on society?

It's awful. To look at cities that used to be served by newsrooms of 300, or 500 journalists, now reduced to virtually nothing, is terrible. This is the way democracy decomposes. We're sleepwalking into an absolute disaster. Jefferson had it right almost 250 years ago when he said he'd rather have newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers.

The Atlantic announced earlier this year a partnership with OpenAI. Some of your journalists have been critical of the magazine's decision to get into bed with the Sam Altman-led company. What do you make of the deal?

Nobody's getting into bed with Sam Altman. All you have to do is read our coverage of OpenAI to see that. Obviously our editorial team has full independence to cover issues and companies the way we want to. I've told our staff from the beginning that The Atlantic is a magazine about humans, made by humans, and for humans. I don't need the ghost of Ralph Waldo Emerson harassing me.

On the actual deal you're referring to: Our business side believed that participating with AI search in its early stages — therefore, with any luck, shaping it in a way that values and protects our work — could be an important way to help build our audience. I don't know how it's going to turn out, but I'm somewhat hopeful. The thing that worries me is the end of search as we know it, and I want to make sure our work continues to be found. I also believe that it's worth figuring out ways in which A.I. can extend the reach of human-made work. The jury's out on this, but I pay a lot of attention to the potential here, as well as the dangers.

Should streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon invest in news programming? These companies seem to be recreating the cable bundle, sans the news.

Among the many things I don't understand is the television news business. But, of course, it's my interest as a journalist and a citizen to see corporations of such huge reach invest in serious journalism. This seems like a civic duty to me, not that many of these companies currently think in those terms.

In addition to announcing an expansion this week, The Atlantic also endorsed Kamala Harris. It's only the fifth endorsement in the magazine's 167-year history. Tell us why you opted to jump into the 2024 waters.

The Atlantic's founders (including the aformentioned Emerson) believed that their magazine should be "of no party or clique." We try to keep to that, and we try hard to be a platform for various political viewpoints. But Trumpism isn't conservatism; it's authoritarian populism, and I'm sure that the founders of The Atlantic weren't fond of anti-democratic demagogues. We didn't endorse Harris because she's a member of a particular party or for her policy ideas or ideological proclivities; we endorsed her because she respects democracy, and, unlike Trump, she didn't lead an anti-constitutional insurrection. There are two major candidates in the race; one tried to overthrow the government, the other didn't. Pretty easy to me.

Why haven't more news organizations taken such a stance? It seems odd that most don't seem capable of stating that authoritarianism isn't great.

Old habits, I guess. We're in a new reality and new realities are hard to recognize. I imagine, though, that market considerations play a role: Trump's 70 million-plus voters are also consumers. I don't want to be too cynical about this, though, and I would say that many journalism organizations have indeed recognized that Trump does not operate within the previously settled norms of American political behavior.

Who do you believe will win in November?

You're asking me to predict the outcome of the closest race in modern history? I'm not walking into this one. Anything is possible. One thing seems probable, though: If Harris wins, Trump won't accept the results, and then we're off to the races. We have to be ready for this moment.

Is there anything else on your mind these days?

What's on my mind is that the press is under assault because reality itself is under assault. I would point people to Charlie Warzel's most recent piece, which details the way in which dangerous unreality has even infiltrated discussion of the weather. I worry that if the platforms don't do anything to stop the proliferation of conspiracy theories and hatred, there's very little that we in the so-called mainstream press can do to introduce more reality into society.

Status Check