Jim VandeHei dishes on 2024, future of TV news, Big Tech, and more

Few media executives speak as plainly about the industry as Jim VandeHei.

The Axios and POLITICO co-founder regularly attracts notice for his candid evaluations. Whether he's sounding the alarm on the coming A.I. revolution or calling out fellow media entrepreneur Jimmy Finkelstein for the "business malpractice" involved in launching the now-defunct The Messenger, VandeHei is not one to mince words.

That’s precisely why I wanted to chat with VandeHei for this week’s Q&A. Below is our conversation, lightly edited for clarity, about the 2024 race, the future of television news, the state of digital news, Big Tech, and more.

The election is just a few weeks away and Donald Trump has a good shot at capturing the White House for a second term. What do you most fear the consequences would be for the press if he were to win in November?

If he follows through on threats to jail or target media critics, that would be a debacle for democracy and the First Amendment. He and his allies have made this threat, so it'd be foolish to think it couldn't happen. Hope it's bluster. Win or lose, he'll keep crapping on the media. That certainly erodes public trust in journalism. Regardless, we have to do our jobs, clinically and fearlessly.

While Trump's campaign bombards the press with an endless stream of lies and deceit, the Harris campaign has generally been press shy, preferring to mostly avoid the national political media. What do you make of that?

It's a deliberate strategy. I get the campaign thesis — control the message, avoid big missteps, focus on the future. But it feels very unfair to voters: They deserve the right to see anyone vying to run the country answer difficult questions under persistent and unpredictable probing by tough, clinical journalists. Axios' Alex Thompson, who I consider by far the toughest and most honest reporter on that beat, has laid out in vivid detail — in an array of stories — liberal positions where she has changed her mind, or refused to reveal her current view. Voters deserve to hear her explanations before they vote.

Who's going to win the election?

I have no clue. Nor does anyone else.

On the business side of the equation, most legacy media outlets — particularly those that are television-focused — continue to struggle/decline. What does the landscape look like by the next presidential race?

• In TV: Lower ratings. TV talent making less. Mergers or closings.

• In digital: A country fully broken into dozens of information ecosystems, a more dramatic version of today. New platforms. New media stars, many of them unknown to people outside their platforms or bubbles. Safe to assume: massive rise in A.I.-generated and A.I.-augmented content.

• Everywhere: New individualized A.I. platforms where via phone — or glasses or ring or chip planted somewhere — you get your news, your research, your fashion tips and purchases, your reservations, your records, your digital memory stored, all operating in a real-time convo between man and machine. Imagine politicians trying to reach voters when each person has their own, personal information bubble.

CNN this week put up the beginnings of a paywall on its website. Do you think it will prove to be successful and, if you were Mark Thompson, what would you be doing to transition the outlet to digital?

It's impossible to opine on someone else's business without looking under the hood. All I know is this: People will pay for things they must have, and little else. Nice to have won't cut it. So if CNN's data shows a very sizable number of people rely on their content on a near-daily basis, or are engaged so deeply with it as to become habituated, then it could be a wonderful business. If not, it won't be. But that's true for all of us. CNN is a real treasure, so I hope it works.

What digital media ventures or strategies have impressed you this year?

We're focused on two things: making sure Axios is one of the big, trusted, vital media companies flourishing — and how A.I. can help, hinder or change our competitive set & environment. Our view: Only those companies that provide truly distinct content to distinct, vital audiences will thrive in the years ahead. Others, I fear, will die or shrivel into irrelevance.

So I admire how The New York Times evolves its digital offerings for its very defined audience; how Puck and Punchbowl stay focused, lean and resist scale-quick distractions; how The Information locks in and keeps serving its tech audience more panoramically; how the All-In guys turned a show into a brand and now a growing business; how individuals like Jessica Yellin strike out on their own and grow their reach and keep at it; how Bari Weiss found a new voice, scaled it and then raised money to try to go bigger. There are lots of people to study. New ideas flow from having a strong sense of purpose/direction, then plucking from those smarter than you and evolving.

Big tech has largely been allergic to news, but Amazon is now taking a baby step into the arena with a splashy election night show featuring Brian Williams. Are the tech titans going to make a play for news? Would you welcome it if they did?

No clue. Many seem so cautious about running the risk of offending big chunks of viewers. But there's great interest in big ideas, big personalities and big media stories, so I wouldn't be surprised if they do. The smartest platform will be the one that brings back "Axios on HBO" — and convinces Jonathan Swan to return to His One True Home so we can grill the powerful again. Follow the light, 🦢.

Status Check