Lately I've been a volunteer contributor to the Big Local News project at Stanford. In my next post I'll describe what I've been doing — I think it's interesting. But this post is about the people and the project, which has been the best part.

Why Journalism? Why Journalists?

I didn't go looking to be part of journalism. It's not something I've ever done, not really even something I've aspired to. I didn't write for my high school paper. Intermittent posts to this blog are the most writing I've done in a long time. This blog is proof that I'm not much of a writer and I'm certainly not an investigator.

What I've come to understand is that writing is only a part of the journalist's job, maybe not even the most important part. Sure, you have to know structure and grammar, and know how to present complex ideas in a cogent way. But look at how Britannica defines journalism:

Journalism is the collection, preparation, and distribution of news and information to the public. Embedded in the idea of journalism is the notion that it exists to inform the public and hold the powerful to account.

There are a lot of verbs in there, none of which are "writing" or "editing."

These days the journalist's job seems to be as much about data as the traditional parts of the job: working the phones, cultivating sources, and shoe-leather chasing down leads. Journalists are now expected to know how to get data, evaluate it, and analyze it to pull out insights. Aside from the purely narrative stories, most stories are built on foundations of insightful data.

Indeed, if you read the FAQ at the Stanford Master's in Journalism program page, when someone asks "I'm a writer but I don't know how to program, is this program a fit for me?" the answer is "we'll teach you." I think that's pretty common in the field these days. But it's also a tall order. Some journalists want to be data engineers too, but some don't.

Back to the definition: "collection, preparation, and distribution" of news sounds like data science to me. But also read that second part, about "informing the public" and "holding the powerful to account." Good stuff, right? Journalists (at least the ones I've been working with lately) bring a sense of mission to the job. Sure, it's work, it's of civic importance, and there's pride in the craft. But what they seem to enjoy the most is speaking truth to power. They're troublemakers.

Big Local News

I found my way to the Big Local team through my friend Hannah. She's a librarian at Stanford. She introduced me to Cheryl Phillips, the director and program founder, and we met over coffee. We hit it off.

Two things impressed me. First, the mission. Big Local News uses technology to bend the cost curve for local journalism — make local news cheaper. I'll say a little more about why that resonates with me below. But I believe local news is worth fighting for, and I like how BLN is doing it. Trying to fix the demand side of the news business model feels really hard, swimming against a lot of currents — more readers! more exciting stuff! I think Big Local News, by taking on a supply-side fix, is taking a novel and more scalable approach.

Second, I really liked the BLN team. They are muckrakers and do-gooders, exactly the kind of mission-driven people I described above. Sure, they also have good technical chops and I enjoy doing tech stuff with them. But first and foremost they're journalists. Most have worked a beat or spent time in a newsroom. They know the domain, and they know what problems local news organizations actually have. So I have some confidence that if we build this stuff, it'll reach the local news outlets that need it. It's also important that they are bright, nice people.

After meeting the team and going to a conference I got to work (more on the project coming soon). For the past three months I've worked as a member of the team. They've welcomed me into their meetings. I sit with them in the McClatchy building on the Stanford campus, I'm in the Slack, and I went to their year-end party. It's nice to be affiliated with these folks. I like having an excuse to hang out with some troublemakers.

Last week I was proud to be added to the team "about" page — scroll down to the "Collaborators" section. 😀

Motivation

I think everyone's aware of the decline of the business model behind local news over the past twenty-some years. It's gone from bad to worse. A couple of examples.

In some places, like the Bay Area Peninsula where I live, local papers banded together as a nonprofit, Embarcadero Media, on the theory that they are a public good (which they are). Being a 501(c)(3) enables charitable giving to fill in gaps left when classified ads and subscriptions dried up. That's a fine solution to the problem — honest, and probably useful — but I think that might only work in wealthy places like here.

Not so much for Fresno, where I'm from. My mom and dad still both live there (separately) and each gets the daily paper. Both bemoan the slow decline of the Fresno Bee: the print version that Mom wants is down to three days a week and upward of $500/year to have delivered to your door. That's just too much, so Dad takes the SF Chronicle, a good paper but not local. Without news about your community, is it any surprise that people feel less connected to and invested in where they live? And yes, the mundane things like weather and high school sports do matter.

What's a place like Fresno to do? I recently came across Fresnoland, which looks to be doing some good reporting. They're structured as a nonprofit, like Embarcadero, and they've gotten good donors. I hope that's keeping the lights on! I see two members on their staff for whom Report for America pays half their salary — that seems like a cause worth supporting. Maybe it's presumptuous, but I imagine Fresnoland might need some help with the data science. They're exactly the kind of team that Big Local News is aiming to help.

I think having better, shared news is one part of healing the divisions in this country. If I can help with a little bit of that, it's worth doing.

Governments should produce public goods, like navigation aids and roads. That seems like a reasonable thing to expect of a functioning government, right?

I consider data a public good too. We all benefit from accurate maps, thorough measurements of the natural world, and trustworthy economic data.

Which is why I was so upset when I heard how the current US administration has been on a tear to actually remove data. All through 2025, websites were taking down and datasets were taken offline. This Wikipedia page catalogs what's been happening, and this report by the American Statistical Association goes into more depth about what's been happening and its implications.

In response the Data Rescue Project sprang into action. They're a group of concerned academics, librarians, and citizens who have been copying and cataloging datasets so they aren't lost. The project's press page has links to many articles and presentations that describe their work and its impact. Last November I saw a call for volunteers for DRP on a mailing list of ex-Googlers and was eager to help.

Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD)

It's worth describing a bit about the particular dataset I actually worked on: Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD). It's a good case study.

HIFLD is a collection of maps. Maps of basic stuff, like roads, levees, river depth charts, locations of military bases. Beyond just being good maps, a big part of HIFLD's value is helping to make sure everyone uses the same maps.

So HIFLD is mostly curating data. Most of the data comes from other agencies (USGS, Army Corps of Engineers, Census Bureau) and HIFLD brings it together and provides it in a trustworthy, central place. Well, I should say "provided" because in September the government stopped providing it. The story is well told in this good article on Project Geospatial.

This is where the Data Rescue Project comes in. DRP volunteers immediately scooped up the data and kept in temporary storage. Then they organized a bucket brigade of volunteers to categorize and put snapshots into long-term storage. Importantly, this was coupled with metadata to ensure they're findable later. That's the part I worked on, uploading and entering metadata. We met our goal of getting all of HIFLD "rescued" by year's end. Frank Donnelly, the project manager, wrote up a nice summary of what we did and how. For my piece I relied on a nice Selenium driver, written by another volunteer, to create over a hundred projects (screen recording).

This is just one of many DRP efforts. Check out their tracker to see the breadth of work.

While I'm proud of this project, I keep reminding myself that we're playing defense. Having a one-time snapshot isn't nearly as good as having the government actually do its job. Which is why we need to keep demanding better leadership and a return to effective government. Assert your rights and protest!   ❌ 👑.

Post-Publish Updates

I'll update this section from time to time with updates and press on this project.

• Data Rescue Project endorsed this project, I signed the petition as an individual: Preservation of Government Information, 12-March-2026
• What's next for HIFLD, 17-March-2026
• Data Rescue Project mention, On Guerrilla Archives in the Disinformation Age, The Conversationalist, 10-April-2026

I just finished the Big Dig podcast and it's worth a listen. It's about Boston's Central Artery/Tunnel Project, the most expensive highway project in US history. They cover the whole story, from conception, to getting it approved, to years of execution, and then the fallout from cost overruns and mismanagement. The podcast is well produced and has a lot of primary-source interviews.

I have a little bit of a personal connection, since I lived in Boston during the project's later years when it was on the news all the time. I even toured a part under construction.

But what I find most compelling is trying to connect to the question, can America build big infrastructure anymore? It's something I think lot about. We benefit from by the giant projects from the past (dams, bridges, interstates) but can't maintain them properly; we struggle to take on new things like high-speed rail.

They place most of the blame on headwinds that didn't exist in the public-works heyday of the twentieth century. Leaders are under more scrutiny; projects fall under a bunch of regulations intended to protect the environment and workers. Public commentary slows things down.

The problem is, while the old way was easier, it also caused a lot of harm. I learned the story of the Cambridge and East Boston families that stopped interstate projects that would have leveled their homes and neighborhoods. I know those places well. I used to own a home right where one of those roads was supposed to have been. I sure am grateful to those protesters who won!

It ends on a hopeful note. Not that it's easy, nor are we necessarily that much better managing big projects now. But there are success stories.

One part I especially liked was 20 minutes into the final episode, in the final interview with Fred Salvucci, where he told the story Saint Francis. God tells Francis to build a cathedral, but then tears it down. Francis builds another, God destroys it again. Why, Francis asks. Because it's not enough to build a physical cathedral, but you also have to build the support for it in the hearts and minds of the people. Maybe that's the part we're not doing well enough now.