There are excellent journalists reporting for independent outlets such as Nation, the Atlantic, Vox and others, some of which have been around, surviving on a shoe-string, for decades. They could use a shout-out and some support, too, besides the Substackers.
The Guardian, The Financial Times (where I worked years ago) and The Economist will all be invaluable sources of US political and policy-related news for the next four years if not longer. I might also start reading the (excellent) Globe and Mail from up north. The US press will still be capable of doing good work under the Trump regime: Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong and even Rupert Murdoch will still want their respective papers to be able to scoop the Sulzbergers' New York Times whenever possible. But I think more than ever, if you want less compromised takes on the US political scene, you'd do yourself a favor by adding to your media diet one or more serious foreign news sources.
Dan, I agree that independent media are part of the solution. However, I suspect that the Democrats can't make a successful comeback if they write off the corporate media.
For example, the small-scale media outlets you mention all operate at the national level, yet one of the biggest problems we face is the growth of "news deserts" in many communities across the country.
Simply put, we need large-scale media reform. For entirely too long that subject has largely been the focus of media professionals. In contrast, political professionals have tended to treat the media in purely instrumental ways, e.g., like which outlets should your candidate talk to.
Media reform needs to be added to the Democrats' national policy agenda. That requires thinking more deeply about what our goals are and the most effective policy levers to achieve them. It's not an easy subject to wrap one's brain around, but to ignore it could be damaging to the future prospects of Democrats -- and democracy.
I agree. The one consideration I am not seeing discussed is reporters. To be a viable news source, you simply have to have a cadre of smart, experienced and reliable reporters. Gathering facts, digging out the hidden motivations, and cranking it all into a readable narrative is a skill. Many of the small independent media outlets rely on facts first reported by those reporters working for what is referred to here—somewhat dismissively by some—as legacy or corporate media. Hiring reporters and allowing them the time to build contacts snd expertise takes time and money.
None of this matters if the democratic messengers are old and ill equipped for today’s communications environment. AOC losing to Gerry Connolly is insanity - my new rule is I’m not voting for anyone old enough to collect social security. The olds are fucking everything up.
Please don't go overboard with this. I wanted AOC too, but saying that the 'olds are fucking everything up' is insulting. I'm 72. Believe me, a lot of people my age are progressives and plan to be part of the resistance.
I thought you meant going forward. And many of us did a lot -- donations, postcards, door knocking. I guess it feels like kind of a stretch to say that Harris lost because older Americans didn't do enough.....
There's a term for that attitude -- ageism. Yes, there is a need for fresh leadership, but someone's age alone does not determine whether they are better able to "meet the moment."
I think what sank AOC’s chances was her past practice of encouraging candidates to primary current Dem House members. Admittedly that was pretty arrogant and self-defeating, trying to “purify” the House instead of winning the majority.
I used to criticize AOC as a pol from a district where a ham sandwich could get elected if it declared as a Democrat. She has never been in the position of having to win a majority by pulling swing voters to her side, and so it’s valid to wonder if she could understand the positions taken by someone in that situation. Or if she could survive politically herself in a similar district.
Connelly may be too old to do a good job. Few have the communication skills that AOC has. But who has stronger relationships inside the House, who can reliably count votes? I don’t know, but I hope that those who voted weighed factors besides age.
It's not a matter of feelings -- it's just the facts. Success in politics starts with accurately diagnosing the problem. I was responding to a category error. People do not automatically become obsolete once they turn a certain age.
Age is an immutable characteristic. Deciding someone's worth based solely on age is bigotry. Bernie Sanders, who moved the Dems farther toward progressivism than any other current elected politician, is 83. Krysten Sinema, poster child for exploiting political power for self-enrichment, is only 48. I'll bet AOC would tell you to grow up.
What about Nancy Pelosi? She’s a prime example of an older leader who’s been incredibly effective and influential. It’s unfair and reductive to assume that older people are automatically ill-equipped for today’s challenges.
Age doesn’t determine effectiveness, passion, or the ability to connect in a modern communications environment. Many older people are just as sharp, driven, and capable as their younger counterparts. Labeling an entire group based on age ignores the contributions and experience they bring to the table.
Agreed--and I say that as someone over 65. The Connolly thing was a disgrace and a sends exactly the message that younger voters internalized when no one really objected to Biden's announcement to run again: Democrats don't care about younger voters.
It's hard to say how it will evolve, but there is growth and the ABC example will hasten the demise of legacy media as trust diminishes. Among promising sources in the meantime, check out/support States Newsroom "the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization, with reporting from every capital." Lift the good independents up so they have a chance to grow.
That's a great idea... in fact, we need the wealthier Dems to step up and buy some of mainstream media before the entire media landscape becomes 'State News'.
"I’m talking about outlets like ProPublica, Courtier News, Crooked Media (my employer), Zeteo, the Bulwark, and Judd Legum’s Popular Information. I'm also talking about online creators like Hasan Piker, Elizabeth Booker Houston, David Pakman, and Brian Tyler Cohen. These folks are not traditional journalists. They don’t do the same thing traditional journalists do, but they are the future of media — and are more likely to boldly advocate for our democracy."
Thank you, Dan! What will it take for people to get out of their comfy bubbles and venture into unfamiliar media worlds? Dems must go into these places to plead their case; otherwise, they'll be consigned to the hinterlands for, well, maybe forever, becoming utterly irrelevant, out-of-touch, and solipsistic.
Dan, and others: when speaking about “Independent Media,” please do not leave out Democracy Now. Their site has been my internet opening page for years. Since 1996 they have been reporting daily, providing a unique, often provocative perspective on global events. Watch, read or listen!
Democrats once had the idea to give news media a special tax break to insure their survival. And protections for sources. Of course, we are Democrats, so we never followed through on interesting and perhaps valuable ideaS. Instead we sat on our butts while hedge funds conglomerated local newspapers, vaguely right wing nuts bought up talk radio, and TV and online news somehow failed compete with every other industry for revenue growth and profit. The news business is the only type of commercial business singled out or even mentioned in the Constitution. Seems like maybe we should have paid attention?
And sadly the AP report you quote falls into the Trump trap. What GS said was not inaccurate, as AP reports without serious context, if you read the judge's characterization of rape as applied to Trump
Different subject, would love to hear your thoughts...what if anything is Biden doing on his way out to advance a bird flu vaccine? All I'm hearing is there will def be another pandemic very soon.
There are excellent journalists reporting for independent outlets such as Nation, the Atlantic, Vox and others, some of which have been around, surviving on a shoe-string, for decades. They could use a shout-out and some support, too, besides the Substackers.
What are our best less corporate journalism options from overseas, like the Guardian maybe?
The Guardian is great. Very solid journalism, seemingly beholden to no one.
The Guardian, The Financial Times (where I worked years ago) and The Economist will all be invaluable sources of US political and policy-related news for the next four years if not longer. I might also start reading the (excellent) Globe and Mail from up north. The US press will still be capable of doing good work under the Trump regime: Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong and even Rupert Murdoch will still want their respective papers to be able to scoop the Sulzbergers' New York Times whenever possible. But I think more than ever, if you want less compromised takes on the US political scene, you'd do yourself a favor by adding to your media diet one or more serious foreign news sources.
Dan, I agree that independent media are part of the solution. However, I suspect that the Democrats can't make a successful comeback if they write off the corporate media.
For example, the small-scale media outlets you mention all operate at the national level, yet one of the biggest problems we face is the growth of "news deserts" in many communities across the country.
Simply put, we need large-scale media reform. For entirely too long that subject has largely been the focus of media professionals. In contrast, political professionals have tended to treat the media in purely instrumental ways, e.g., like which outlets should your candidate talk to.
Media reform needs to be added to the Democrats' national policy agenda. That requires thinking more deeply about what our goals are and the most effective policy levers to achieve them. It's not an easy subject to wrap one's brain around, but to ignore it could be damaging to the future prospects of Democrats -- and democracy.
I agree. The one consideration I am not seeing discussed is reporters. To be a viable news source, you simply have to have a cadre of smart, experienced and reliable reporters. Gathering facts, digging out the hidden motivations, and cranking it all into a readable narrative is a skill. Many of the small independent media outlets rely on facts first reported by those reporters working for what is referred to here—somewhat dismissively by some—as legacy or corporate media. Hiring reporters and allowing them the time to build contacts snd expertise takes time and money.
Well said!
None of this matters if the democratic messengers are old and ill equipped for today’s communications environment. AOC losing to Gerry Connolly is insanity - my new rule is I’m not voting for anyone old enough to collect social security. The olds are fucking everything up.
Please don't go overboard with this. I wanted AOC too, but saying that the 'olds are fucking everything up' is insulting. I'm 72. Believe me, a lot of people my age are progressives and plan to be part of the resistance.
But how do you know we're not?
I thought you meant going forward. And many of us did a lot -- donations, postcards, door knocking. I guess it feels like kind of a stretch to say that Harris lost because older Americans didn't do enough.....
There's a term for that attitude -- ageism. Yes, there is a need for fresh leadership, but someone's age alone does not determine whether they are better able to "meet the moment."
I think what sank AOC’s chances was her past practice of encouraging candidates to primary current Dem House members. Admittedly that was pretty arrogant and self-defeating, trying to “purify” the House instead of winning the majority.
I used to criticize AOC as a pol from a district where a ham sandwich could get elected if it declared as a Democrat. She has never been in the position of having to win a majority by pulling swing voters to her side, and so it’s valid to wonder if she could understand the positions taken by someone in that situation. Or if she could survive politically herself in a similar district.
Connelly may be too old to do a good job. Few have the communication skills that AOC has. But who has stronger relationships inside the House, who can reliably count votes? I don’t know, but I hope that those who voted weighed factors besides age.
Exactly!
It's not a matter of feelings -- it's just the facts. Success in politics starts with accurately diagnosing the problem. I was responding to a category error. People do not automatically become obsolete once they turn a certain age.
Age is an immutable characteristic. Deciding someone's worth based solely on age is bigotry. Bernie Sanders, who moved the Dems farther toward progressivism than any other current elected politician, is 83. Krysten Sinema, poster child for exploiting political power for self-enrichment, is only 48. I'll bet AOC would tell you to grow up.
What about Nancy Pelosi? She’s a prime example of an older leader who’s been incredibly effective and influential. It’s unfair and reductive to assume that older people are automatically ill-equipped for today’s challenges.
Age doesn’t determine effectiveness, passion, or the ability to connect in a modern communications environment. Many older people are just as sharp, driven, and capable as their younger counterparts. Labeling an entire group based on age ignores the contributions and experience they bring to the table.
Charming
Agreed--and I say that as someone over 65. The Connolly thing was a disgrace and a sends exactly the message that younger voters internalized when no one really objected to Biden's announcement to run again: Democrats don't care about younger voters.
It's hard to say how it will evolve, but there is growth and the ABC example will hasten the demise of legacy media as trust diminishes. Among promising sources in the meantime, check out/support States Newsroom "the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization, with reporting from every capital." Lift the good independents up so they have a chance to grow.
Is there anyway that Soros or a consortium led by Spielberg could be persuaded to take MSNBC off Comcast's hands?
That's a great idea... in fact, we need the wealthier Dems to step up and buy some of mainstream media before the entire media landscape becomes 'State News'.
"I’m talking about outlets like ProPublica, Courtier News, Crooked Media (my employer), Zeteo, the Bulwark, and Judd Legum’s Popular Information. I'm also talking about online creators like Hasan Piker, Elizabeth Booker Houston, David Pakman, and Brian Tyler Cohen. These folks are not traditional journalists. They don’t do the same thing traditional journalists do, but they are the future of media — and are more likely to boldly advocate for our democracy."
Thank you, Dan! What will it take for people to get out of their comfy bubbles and venture into unfamiliar media worlds? Dems must go into these places to plead their case; otherwise, they'll be consigned to the hinterlands for, well, maybe forever, becoming utterly irrelevant, out-of-touch, and solipsistic.
Dan, and others: when speaking about “Independent Media,” please do not leave out Democracy Now. Their site has been my internet opening page for years. Since 1996 they have been reporting daily, providing a unique, often provocative perspective on global events. Watch, read or listen!
Yes! Democracy Now is the “OG” of independent, progressive media!
Democrats once had the idea to give news media a special tax break to insure their survival. And protections for sources. Of course, we are Democrats, so we never followed through on interesting and perhaps valuable ideaS. Instead we sat on our butts while hedge funds conglomerated local newspapers, vaguely right wing nuts bought up talk radio, and TV and online news somehow failed compete with every other industry for revenue growth and profit. The news business is the only type of commercial business singled out or even mentioned in the Constitution. Seems like maybe we should have paid attention?
Independent media is great but unfortunately the voters who voted for Trump don’t read it and most of the other great Substack writers.
Add MeidasTouchNetwork.
Yes!!!!
My dad just sued me after I called him a MAGA Asshat. Message received.
Maybe iron lung makers could head to Mara Lago and offer to share profits with Trump if he’ll just make sure Bobby finds polio vaccines “unsafe”
And sadly the AP report you quote falls into the Trump trap. What GS said was not inaccurate, as AP reports without serious context, if you read the judge's characterization of rape as applied to Trump
Different subject, would love to hear your thoughts...what if anything is Biden doing on his way out to advance a bird flu vaccine? All I'm hearing is there will def be another pandemic very soon.
Oh, lawdy. Life is going to just suck for at least four years.