I canceled mine too. I was willing to give them a mulligan for the endorsement debacle, but now it’s very clear the contents of the paper will be decided by Jeffrey Bezos. No thank you!
So close Dan. Not just "corporate" media. Our corporate structure is a problem. Our one true god is mammon. Our temples are corporations that never die - no matter how heinous their past actions in pursuit of "profit" - we have elevated what we do for $ over what and who we are. In the pursuit of money freedom has morphed into money. But money remains a set a shackles. The basic philosophy on which we've structured society needs to be reset and to do that we need to destroy the "freedom" to become a billionaire...the class war has been fought by only one side my entire life. Time to meet the moment.
I noticed that you failed to mention the Meidas Touch Network. They currently have more viewers than Joe Rogan and Fox News. They post their news several times a day. Next time, please include them, as they are telling what is happening in the courts, in the news, and their opinions.
Also the Tampa Bay Times—nonprofit ownership is the only way forward for independent, non-ideological journalism. Agenda-based media, even when we agree with the agenda, is no substitute.
Dan, I get why you would turn Bezo's actions at the Post into an advertisement for independent media. It's an excellent recruitment tool. And I've worked with small-scale media long enough that I find the basic argument appealing. However, I don't accept your premise that there is something fundamentally wrong with "corporate media."
For one thing, independent media even in an idealized form simply don't have the journalistic capacity to cover such a large and complex political economy as we have in the United States. There really is no substitute for a large newspaper like the Washington Post or The New York Times when it comes to fielding an army of reporters around the country -- and world.
The current terrible plight of our media ecosystem wasn't inevitable. The US could have had vigorously enforced antitrust laws that did not allow rape-and-pillage venture capitalists and faceless conglomerates to trade media properties like baseball cards. Perhaps just as importantly, public policies could have stopped social-media monopolists such as Meta and Google from capturing so much advertising revenue that it has thrown the legacy media into an existential crisis.
We're not going to get real media reform by merely subscribing to a bunch of Substack newsletters and podcasts. We need to elect Democrats with a commitment to the robust enforcement of up-to-date antitrust laws and changing the way that public media is structured so that it is better protected against right-wing attacks when they get into power.
Democrats have ignored media public policy development for entirely too long. Please don't perpetuate this by using the current crisis as merely a recruitment tool for the likes of Crooked Media.
Thank you for the excellent comment. There was a movement in the early 90s to reform not news media, but the ownership and tax structures around news media. That reform was meant to isolate news media organizations from any other profit-making business, even other forms of media. Given news media’s lower expected return on investment, special tax structures would be put in place to make its stock attractive and to remove the financial handicap of the industry.
The proposed law was modeled in part by the Bank Holding Company Act which for decades kept bank holding companies from owning (or being owned by) non-bank commercisl entities.
Good points. I hope that Dan and the Pod boys will follow up on ideas like these. I strikes me as an electoral dead end for the Democrats to give up on large-scale news media. Structural reforms are possible, but these policy conversations don't typically reach beyond media professionals. Dan can help to change that.
Journalism was far worse in the era of “yellow journalism” when W. R. Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer competed to start the Spanish-American War. The three largest and most influential newspapers in the country simply invented stories and “facts” out of whole cloth. Both the New York World snd the New York Journal invented interviews (that never really happened) or changed the substance of real interviews to suit their purposes.
But beware of cancelling subscriptions to papers whose reporters still report fact. We could easily purge the environment of capable reporters. They would be hard to replace once they lose their jobs and start selling real estate.
Instead, think about demanding reform, both from the publisher and your elected reps.
Another bright light in the media landscape is independent local news, much of which is nonprofit and community-led and focused. I'm part of a local group in Minnesota that launched www.WoodburyNewsNet.org and is being embraced by residents and local business leaders. This is happening around the country -- please check out the Institute for Nonprofit News www.inn.org to find newsrooms in your area and help spread the word!
I subscribe to about 15 writers on Substack, and encourage everyone I know to support independent journalism. As for Amazon…I’ve gone from the convenience of ordering most of my daily products from them to ONLY ordering from them if I can’t find the item elsewhere, or if I’m shipping non-perishable food to my “adopted family” who lives in a remote “holler” in the Appalachian mountains with little access to stores. I welcome ideas from others! In general, my spending on non-essentials has ground to a halt. May as well help these stooges tank the economy - then sit back while they explain themselves.
While there is much over which to criticize The NY Times, their ownership structure seems to give it a better chance than the other outlets to maintain some credibility. I suspect same is true for the Atlantic.
Dan, there’s a flaw here. Many of today’s independent media ventures are started precisely to grow to a point where they have a recognized voice and online presence, and then find a buyer who will offer enough money to bring a healthy return on original investment to the original backers.
In other words, you can’t change the business model for for-profit news organizations without corporate and tax reform for this space.
Another point: while large news organizations can afford to defend frivolous lawsuits (though it remains to be seen if they will), the examples of independent media you mention would never be able to withstand faithless lawsuits designed to financially ruin small news organizations and even individual reporters.
By necessity, small news organizations would have to be highly specialized to afford reporters with the expertise to dig into issues. A “small” news business could never afford to develop both the depth and breadth of, say, NPR.
Once upon a time, like before the mergers & acquisitions mania of the Reagan and post-Reagan years, local and small regional papers flourished. As well as covering local and regional news in depth, they were a training ground for entry-level reporters who could work their way up to one of the major metropolitan dailies.
You're right about one thing, though: news media do need some protection against frivolous lawsuits brought by the uber-wealthy and easily pissed-off partisans.
Dan, don't forget about PBS and CPB. Frontline is a national treasure. Public broadcasting and news deserve our support, no matter how cringey and supplicatory NPR can sometimes be!
Canceled my 25 year old subscription to the Washington Post today
Bypass Amazon; buy directly from the seller.
I cancelled it (after reading it since i was old enough to read) when they didn't endorse Kamala. We all need to support true independent media.
I canceled mine too. I was willing to give them a mulligan for the endorsement debacle, but now it’s very clear the contents of the paper will be decided by Jeffrey Bezos. No thank you!
So close Dan. Not just "corporate" media. Our corporate structure is a problem. Our one true god is mammon. Our temples are corporations that never die - no matter how heinous their past actions in pursuit of "profit" - we have elevated what we do for $ over what and who we are. In the pursuit of money freedom has morphed into money. But money remains a set a shackles. The basic philosophy on which we've structured society needs to be reset and to do that we need to destroy the "freedom" to become a billionaire...the class war has been fought by only one side my entire life. Time to meet the moment.
Yes!! And the Roberts court, especially with its Citizens United (2010) decision, has enshrined all of that in law.
So we need a law outlawing human nature?
Unsubscribe- WaPo - just do it. Don’t be complicit. Support independent media.
I noticed that you failed to mention the Meidas Touch Network. They currently have more viewers than Joe Rogan and Fox News. They post their news several times a day. Next time, please include them, as they are telling what is happening in the courts, in the news, and their opinions.
What about newspapers run by nonprofit public-benefit corporations such as the Philadelphia Inquirer?
Also the Tampa Bay Times—nonprofit ownership is the only way forward for independent, non-ideological journalism. Agenda-based media, even when we agree with the agenda, is no substitute.
thank you for the list of media worth following. Please keep anupdated list. thank you.
Independent media is the key
Dan, I get why you would turn Bezo's actions at the Post into an advertisement for independent media. It's an excellent recruitment tool. And I've worked with small-scale media long enough that I find the basic argument appealing. However, I don't accept your premise that there is something fundamentally wrong with "corporate media."
For one thing, independent media even in an idealized form simply don't have the journalistic capacity to cover such a large and complex political economy as we have in the United States. There really is no substitute for a large newspaper like the Washington Post or The New York Times when it comes to fielding an army of reporters around the country -- and world.
The current terrible plight of our media ecosystem wasn't inevitable. The US could have had vigorously enforced antitrust laws that did not allow rape-and-pillage venture capitalists and faceless conglomerates to trade media properties like baseball cards. Perhaps just as importantly, public policies could have stopped social-media monopolists such as Meta and Google from capturing so much advertising revenue that it has thrown the legacy media into an existential crisis.
We're not going to get real media reform by merely subscribing to a bunch of Substack newsletters and podcasts. We need to elect Democrats with a commitment to the robust enforcement of up-to-date antitrust laws and changing the way that public media is structured so that it is better protected against right-wing attacks when they get into power.
Democrats have ignored media public policy development for entirely too long. Please don't perpetuate this by using the current crisis as merely a recruitment tool for the likes of Crooked Media.
Thank you for the excellent comment. There was a movement in the early 90s to reform not news media, but the ownership and tax structures around news media. That reform was meant to isolate news media organizations from any other profit-making business, even other forms of media. Given news media’s lower expected return on investment, special tax structures would be put in place to make its stock attractive and to remove the financial handicap of the industry.
The proposed law was modeled in part by the Bank Holding Company Act which for decades kept bank holding companies from owning (or being owned by) non-bank commercisl entities.
Good points. I hope that Dan and the Pod boys will follow up on ideas like these. I strikes me as an electoral dead end for the Democrats to give up on large-scale news media. Structural reforms are possible, but these policy conversations don't typically reach beyond media professionals. Dan can help to change that.
Journalism was far worse in the era of “yellow journalism” when W. R. Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer competed to start the Spanish-American War. The three largest and most influential newspapers in the country simply invented stories and “facts” out of whole cloth. Both the New York World snd the New York Journal invented interviews (that never really happened) or changed the substance of real interviews to suit their purposes.
But beware of cancelling subscriptions to papers whose reporters still report fact. We could easily purge the environment of capable reporters. They would be hard to replace once they lose their jobs and start selling real estate.
Instead, think about demanding reform, both from the publisher and your elected reps.
Bypass Amazon; buy directly from the seller.
Another bright light in the media landscape is independent local news, much of which is nonprofit and community-led and focused. I'm part of a local group in Minnesota that launched www.WoodburyNewsNet.org and is being embraced by residents and local business leaders. This is happening around the country -- please check out the Institute for Nonprofit News www.inn.org to find newsrooms in your area and help spread the word!
I subscribe to about 15 writers on Substack, and encourage everyone I know to support independent journalism. As for Amazon…I’ve gone from the convenience of ordering most of my daily products from them to ONLY ordering from them if I can’t find the item elsewhere, or if I’m shipping non-perishable food to my “adopted family” who lives in a remote “holler” in the Appalachian mountains with little access to stores. I welcome ideas from others! In general, my spending on non-essentials has ground to a halt. May as well help these stooges tank the economy - then sit back while they explain themselves.
Katharine Graham is spinning in her grave.
While there is much over which to criticize The NY Times, their ownership structure seems to give it a better chance than the other outlets to maintain some credibility. I suspect same is true for the Atlantic.
Dan, there’s a flaw here. Many of today’s independent media ventures are started precisely to grow to a point where they have a recognized voice and online presence, and then find a buyer who will offer enough money to bring a healthy return on original investment to the original backers.
In other words, you can’t change the business model for for-profit news organizations without corporate and tax reform for this space.
Another point: while large news organizations can afford to defend frivolous lawsuits (though it remains to be seen if they will), the examples of independent media you mention would never be able to withstand faithless lawsuits designed to financially ruin small news organizations and even individual reporters.
By necessity, small news organizations would have to be highly specialized to afford reporters with the expertise to dig into issues. A “small” news business could never afford to develop both the depth and breadth of, say, NPR.
Once upon a time, like before the mergers & acquisitions mania of the Reagan and post-Reagan years, local and small regional papers flourished. As well as covering local and regional news in depth, they were a training ground for entry-level reporters who could work their way up to one of the major metropolitan dailies.
You're right about one thing, though: news media do need some protection against frivolous lawsuits brought by the uber-wealthy and easily pissed-off partisans.
Yes, but they made their profit (sometimes over half their revenue) from ads and classified ads. That source of income is no longer available to them.
Bezos has effectively killed WaPO.
Surprised that Blue sky was not mentioned.
Dan, don't forget about PBS and CPB. Frontline is a national treasure. Public broadcasting and news deserve our support, no matter how cringey and supplicatory NPR can sometimes be!
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/
https://cpb.org/
https://www.pbs.org/