By SUZANNE DOWNING
Alaska’s local news landscape is undergoing another shift, driven not only by corporate consolidation and shrinking print revenues, but also by journalists and activists on the political left breaking away from their newspaper bosses to form nonprofit publications they describe as “independent.”
The trend mirrors a broader national decline in traditional newspapers. Last week, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, one of the oldest and largest newspapers in the United States, printed its final daily edition and announced it is moving to an all-digital model, another signal that the traditional newspaper business is rapidly eroding.
In Alaska, that erosion has created an opening for ideologically aligned nonprofits to step into the void, branding themselves as neutral community alternatives while being staffed, governed, and funded by activists with strong political leanings.
In Juneau, the break came in 2025 after disputes between newsroom leadership and Carpenter Media Group, which owns other local papers, including the Juneau Empire.
Former Empire editor Mark Sabbatini left the paper in June, following disagreements over cost-cutting and editorial direction. Sabbatini has said he quit and was also effectively fired during the dispute.
Shortly afterward, he launched the Juneau Independent, a nonprofit, online-only publication marketed as a locally controlled alternative to corporate media. By late summer 2025, much of the Empire’s newsroom staff had followed him, leaving the paper hollowed out and being run by people in Kenai and Canada.
The resulting “independent” outlet reflects a distinctly progressive worldview rather than a genuinely neutral reset. Democrat activists are involved on the board.
That same dynamic is now playing out on the southern Kenai Peninsula.
On Jan. 1, the Homer Independent Press launched as a nonprofit alternative to the Homer News, which is also owned by Carpenter Media Group.
In its launch statement, the new organization said local residents felt the Homer News had declined in quality and integrity. The group said it sought views from “both sides of the political spectrum” and described the Homer area as politically “purple.”
Yet governance details complicate the claim of neutrality. The nonprofit, formally known as NZP4H, or “No Zombie Newspapers for Homer,” is run by a board that includes figures with explicit political ties; one board member is an elected official on the Homer City Council.
While the Homer Independent Press says its bylaws prevent board members and donors from influencing editorial content and that it will follow Society of Professional Journalists standards, the model substitutes one form of influence for another: replacing corporate ownership with ideologically homogeneous leadership.
Together, the developments in Juneau and Homer highlight two simultaneous realities.
First, traditional newspapers, especially in small and mid-sized markets, are increasingly fragile. Cost-cutting, reduced staffing, and the collapse of print advertising have left once-dominant papers vulnerable, a problem now evident nationwide as even major outlets abandon print entirely.
Second, the vacuum is increasingly being filled not by politically neutral startups, but by nonprofit newsrooms rooted in activist cultures that lean heavily left, even as they market themselves as independent or community-driven. These nonprofit leftist newsrooms don’t want to pay taxes. They form up 501(c)(3) corporations to place themselves in a special category and tax loophole that foists their share off to other businesses and citizens. It’s almost as if they are as clever as the capitalists they criticize.



10 thoughts on “As legacy newspapers weaken, Alaska sees rise of ‘independent’ outlets with ideological stripes”
Wonderful. Making money by driving wedges between people. MRAK and Alaska Story are both guilty of it. There’s never any attempt at rapprochement or seeking common ground on either site. “Conflict entrepreneuring” has become a new business model.
Hans, Suzanne has never misrepresented herself. She has always stated clearly that she is writing and presenting news as a conservative. Welcoming lefties like yourself to comment amounts to FAR more “rapprochement” than you will ever find on ANY left/progressive site, where those in charge simply lie and say their content is “unbiased”, “nonpartisan”, etc. Extremely unlikely that one could ever find the conservative equivalent to a Hans Litten on the rare left/liberal site that actually allows comments at all. Think about that.
Well, sir, then I would invite you to take a look at the comments section of the New York Times on any given day. It is replete with opinions from people on both sides of most political issues. Your assertion is provably false.
Secondly, the fact that sites like this do what they do as promised on the label does not make it right. They further inflame people who are already living in a very heated political environment. Do they do it for fun, for profit, for titillation, or for their own personal entertainment? And what really irritates is the fact that it is often done under the guise of Christianity. Whatever happened to “love your neighbor” or “turn the other cheek” or similar principles promulgated by the Good Book?
Strong opinions they do do that driving wedges between people
It can’t be helped
You are not always going to be around people who agree with you
And they never will agree with you
You can’t make everyone agree with you or see you are correct. If you are wrong and continue asserting you are the correct one, then we can all just let you be the dummy in the room.
Look in the mirror and read that back to yourself.
The independent news outlets still have to exercise discernment in whom they bring on to management their sites (for example what happen to Must Read Alaska) going to a group of pompous nincompoops who want control what gets out and what doesn’t.
Grammar and logic headache again…
Missing from Hans Litten’s argument propping up the new 501c(3) “reporting” is the obvious – readers know when they’re being gaslighted, hence the downfall of legacy media. Holding up the NYT as some paragon of unbiased “reporting” and fair support for opinions in a redical Left Marxist stronghold is laughable.
“Radical Left Marxist”? The right needs fresher labels and ones they can define.
If one doesn’t like or agree with what he/she are reading, don’t. There is no comfort or self satisfaction becoming upset with the author or content. Once you self agree what you are reading is contrary and not of interest or creates discomfort, for heaven sake quit reading, move on to what is of comfort.
Life is too short to not relax and enjoy.
Cheers,