I agree that legacy media won’t save us but glad to see the outrage was large enough to force NBC to backtrack and be embarrassed. They clearly felt the scandal would hurt the bottom line, so that’s a win. And also happy to see that Trump goons can’t easily rejoin mainstream society, further emphasized by many of the coup plotters getting disbarred and going broke. Trump himself may get special treatment but the laws of gravity seem to apply double to people in his orbit.
While I also agree that those who support democracy should now - and should have, long, long ago - strongly support great left-leaning media outlets, including The Randi Rhodes Show (where I'm the Executive Producer - https://randirhodes.substack.com/ ), you're partially wrong about news in the U.S., including corporate news, Dan.
It's one of the reason I have, for many, many years, advocated for official standards and practices within the news industry as to what's allowed to call itself news. And for those who don't understand what that means, it's not calling for censorship.
It's calling for a base set of rules for any media org that wants to call itself news, with those rules set up by those who actually work within the industry, and have proven track records of integrity - so no corporate media execs need apply for responsibility.
The label of news used to mean something, primarily truth. It no longer holds that same meaning, because we allow any idiot to call what they do news.
Ok, dude - I've been in media professionally for 30 years, most of it in national U.S. political media. In other words, I've likely been doing this longer than you, and I've certainly been advocating for this idea longer than you.
Again, I'd go into it much further in depth, but I actually have a show to produce.
In the future dude, try not talking down to people who are far more aware of the problem and potential solutions than you appear to be.
Goddammit, can we not have these not so infrequent dude-offs here, of all places. You know, one of you at least needs to be above this, here, and talk like a professional, not a kid. Both of you would be a great idea. I understand anger, just it does not have to be so reactive. You both have good points, how about a good discussion. I have seen this before here and I am tired of it, even though I have read both your many comments and respect you.
Michelle Wolf torched the craven, profits über alles, press in her White House Correspondents dinner speech - and they hated her for it. She was bang on, and so are you, Dan. Money is all that matters to the major networks and cable companies.
My guess is that NBC backtracked because enough people raised enough of a stink that it was going to hurt the bottom line. And that’s the lesson to take away from this. They will only do better if there is a financial reason to do so.
Good point... but I just have to weigh in here and say that at some point the media has got to wake up and realize they are destroying themselves by putting the bottom line first. Once people have stopped trusting the news, there goes any remaining shred of a sense of shared reality in this country. Basically EVERYONE will hate the media, because they will have betrayed the people and even their own reason for existing. Imagine a doctor that makes every decision on profit alone... how long would it be before every single patient would leave, if they didn't die first? Speaking the truth about whatever events are happening is the only reason for 'news' to exist at all... and once trust in that is gone, there is no more reason for media to exist, except as entertainment. The media are setting the stage for AI to come in and finish the job. In other words, if the press 'hated' Michelle Wolf they're even worse than I thought... not a shred of insight and willing to kill the messenger.
Good point. I have to assume The NY Times is hemorrhaging money based on the number of people - including me - who have canceled their subscriptions. Or maybe the Times makes their money a different way? Are its advertisers more willing to buy space if the Times continues its current coverage?
What did we expect? And who can blame CNN and Ronna McDaniel for being surprised at the backlash? After all, CNN and all the other MSM networks continued to bring on people like John Bolton and Condolezza Rice, as purported foreign policy experts, even after their overt lies to sell the War on Iraq. Honesty, legitimacy, decency, character, accountability - those things are irrelevant to stock prices.
Meanwhile, a suggestion to add to the list of media to support: ProPublica - one of the few truly journalistic organizations around. Besides, you just know that every donation irritates Clarence and Ginni Thomas a tad bit more.
Excellent insight. We also must support independent non-profit media outlets like the Tampa Times and the Baltimore Banner that don’t report to corporate overlords.
I am old enough to remember lessons in school about the 4th Estate - and how journalism (which is different than The Media) was a bulwark (ahem) against all kinds of ills. I think that kind of journalism still exists, but it is just so clear that journalists are targeted when they tell the truth. One of the things I work really hard to teach my college writing and lit students is the concept of "framing" - and how from the gate the US has had not just constitutional framers, but national narrative framers who have agendas that aren't necessarily good for everyone.
Is one of our struggles the complexity of our messages? The MAGA GOP has a pretty simple and straightforward message and their base is a homogeneous lot for the most part.
We have a very diverse constituency as to race, culture, age, sexual orientation, education and just about every other no demographic imaginable. We have a lot of messages that can’t boil down succinctly without starting to sound like a cringe-inducing flower-child phrase of the 70s.
Ideally, do we want our journalists objective or neutral? To me, neutrality is what we’re seeing too much of: present both sides and take no sides. Objectivity, on the other hand, allows a reporter to find the truth and explain all the implications of either choice. Objectivity is realism, and puts values and potential outcomes on each choice.
Objectivity isn’t bias, bias is the superficiality of advocacy without facts or insight.
I think 75 year old retirees probably want or need to hear different messages than younger people hoping to find a first professional job or buy the first house. I agree that both (and all other Dem constituencies) want to hear a freedom message.
Actually, another big message is (or should be) safety and protection. R's are the party of 'no or few regulations', where they expect ordinary Americans to somehow protect themselves against pollution, toxic waste, dangerous chemicals, unsafe foods and medications, and mass shooters. I suppose one could call that the 'freedom from' aspect, but to me it fits under the concept of 'promote the general welfare' -- which is in the Constitution (hoping I'm remembering that correctly!). R's have distorted the word 'freedom' to mean, 'do whatever you want even if someone else might get hurt'.
Why I love PodSave! Not beholden ( beyond TommyJohn and Indochino). Segments are frequent enough and long enough to break things down, and commentary is funny and honest and insightful. Same with Messagebox!
Well, a few of the advertisers do work that should not be supported. Betterhelp is one. I do wish Crooked did deep dives to understand what they are promoting. Betterhelp is an unhealthy model that pays badly and promotes dependence.
So yes to out with the false objectivity and false fairness. But I do wonder if this is all just loyalty to a value. I have not read if anyone followed the money behind this choice and I DO care about that. And Dan, this is the best yet from you. Thanks, esp for the recommendations. Some I have found on my own, some not. I want to hear everyone here’s recs for what media you trust.
My favorite sources are Jay Kuo (The Status Kuo) and professor of political history Heather Cox Richardson, who writes Letters from an American almost daily with a recap and analysis of current events. She also does a live politics chat on most Tuesday afternoons and answers questions her followers have submitted. She is a national treasure!
Or maybe "read less spot news but read more longform commentary and analysis." Because an army of uninformed door-knockers is not a step in the right direction.
I agree that legacy media won’t save us but glad to see the outrage was large enough to force NBC to backtrack and be embarrassed. They clearly felt the scandal would hurt the bottom line, so that’s a win. And also happy to see that Trump goons can’t easily rejoin mainstream society, further emphasized by many of the coup plotters getting disbarred and going broke. Trump himself may get special treatment but the laws of gravity seem to apply double to people in his orbit.
Seems Comcast/NBC News et al didn't learn much from the Chris Licht debacle at CNN. Their executives really don't know who their audience is.
Just here to call out the great use of the word vituperative.
And the most apt word “kayfabe”.
had to look that one up!
So did I!! 😉
Getting the opportunity to look up a word, is a sign of a good writing.
Totally. 👍🏻
Boo-yah! Well said.
While I also agree that those who support democracy should now - and should have, long, long ago - strongly support great left-leaning media outlets, including The Randi Rhodes Show (where I'm the Executive Producer - https://randirhodes.substack.com/ ), you're partially wrong about news in the U.S., including corporate news, Dan.
It's one of the reason I have, for many, many years, advocated for official standards and practices within the news industry as to what's allowed to call itself news. And for those who don't understand what that means, it's not calling for censorship.
It's calling for a base set of rules for any media org that wants to call itself news, with those rules set up by those who actually work within the industry, and have proven track records of integrity - so no corporate media execs need apply for responsibility.
The label of news used to mean something, primarily truth. It no longer holds that same meaning, because we allow any idiot to call what they do news.
It's not.
I'd go on longer, but I have to get back to work.
Ok, dude - I've been in media professionally for 30 years, most of it in national U.S. political media. In other words, I've likely been doing this longer than you, and I've certainly been advocating for this idea longer than you.
Again, I'd go into it much further in depth, but I actually have a show to produce.
In the future dude, try not talking down to people who are far more aware of the problem and potential solutions than you appear to be.
Have a good day.
Goddammit, can we not have these not so infrequent dude-offs here, of all places. You know, one of you at least needs to be above this, here, and talk like a professional, not a kid. Both of you would be a great idea. I understand anger, just it does not have to be so reactive. You both have good points, how about a good discussion. I have seen this before here and I am tired of it, even though I have read both your many comments and respect you.
I suppose I just went low and reactive myself. Just: I feel like this is sort of a sacred community. Doesn't mean we have to agree on all things.
Michelle Wolf torched the craven, profits über alles, press in her White House Correspondents dinner speech - and they hated her for it. She was bang on, and so are you, Dan. Money is all that matters to the major networks and cable companies.
My guess is that NBC backtracked because enough people raised enough of a stink that it was going to hurt the bottom line. And that’s the lesson to take away from this. They will only do better if there is a financial reason to do so.
Good point... but I just have to weigh in here and say that at some point the media has got to wake up and realize they are destroying themselves by putting the bottom line first. Once people have stopped trusting the news, there goes any remaining shred of a sense of shared reality in this country. Basically EVERYONE will hate the media, because they will have betrayed the people and even their own reason for existing. Imagine a doctor that makes every decision on profit alone... how long would it be before every single patient would leave, if they didn't die first? Speaking the truth about whatever events are happening is the only reason for 'news' to exist at all... and once trust in that is gone, there is no more reason for media to exist, except as entertainment. The media are setting the stage for AI to come in and finish the job. In other words, if the press 'hated' Michelle Wolf they're even worse than I thought... not a shred of insight and willing to kill the messenger.
Good point. I have to assume The NY Times is hemorrhaging money based on the number of people - including me - who have canceled their subscriptions. Or maybe the Times makes their money a different way? Are its advertisers more willing to buy space if the Times continues its current coverage?
Exactly.
What did we expect? And who can blame CNN and Ronna McDaniel for being surprised at the backlash? After all, CNN and all the other MSM networks continued to bring on people like John Bolton and Condolezza Rice, as purported foreign policy experts, even after their overt lies to sell the War on Iraq. Honesty, legitimacy, decency, character, accountability - those things are irrelevant to stock prices.
Meanwhile, a suggestion to add to the list of media to support: ProPublica - one of the few truly journalistic organizations around. Besides, you just know that every donation irritates Clarence and Ginni Thomas a tad bit more.
🙌 yes on ProPublica! Their partnership with local nonprofit media investigations has been priceless.
Excellent insight. We also must support independent non-profit media outlets like the Tampa Times and the Baltimore Banner that don’t report to corporate overlords.
And Chicago Sun-Times. They partnered with Chicago Public radio to remain viable and also avoided overlords.
And The Guardian!
Hurray for the Guardian. Independ
Independence rocks it !
I am old enough to remember lessons in school about the 4th Estate - and how journalism (which is different than The Media) was a bulwark (ahem) against all kinds of ills. I think that kind of journalism still exists, but it is just so clear that journalists are targeted when they tell the truth. One of the things I work really hard to teach my college writing and lit students is the concept of "framing" - and how from the gate the US has had not just constitutional framers, but national narrative framers who have agendas that aren't necessarily good for everyone.
Don't forget the wonderful political historian Heather Cox Richardson and her almost daily Letters from an American. She is a national treasure!
Is one of our struggles the complexity of our messages? The MAGA GOP has a pretty simple and straightforward message and their base is a homogeneous lot for the most part.
We have a very diverse constituency as to race, culture, age, sexual orientation, education and just about every other no demographic imaginable. We have a lot of messages that can’t boil down succinctly without starting to sound like a cringe-inducing flower-child phrase of the 70s.
Ideally, do we want our journalists objective or neutral? To me, neutrality is what we’re seeing too much of: present both sides and take no sides. Objectivity, on the other hand, allows a reporter to find the truth and explain all the implications of either choice. Objectivity is realism, and puts values and potential outcomes on each choice.
Objectivity isn’t bias, bias is the superficiality of advocacy without facts or insight.
I think we have a simple message. Freedom vs. limitation of freedom by Rs.
I think 75 year old retirees probably want or need to hear different messages than younger people hoping to find a first professional job or buy the first house. I agree that both (and all other Dem constituencies) want to hear a freedom message.
Actually, another big message is (or should be) safety and protection. R's are the party of 'no or few regulations', where they expect ordinary Americans to somehow protect themselves against pollution, toxic waste, dangerous chemicals, unsafe foods and medications, and mass shooters. I suppose one could call that the 'freedom from' aspect, but to me it fits under the concept of 'promote the general welfare' -- which is in the Constitution (hoping I'm remembering that correctly!). R's have distorted the word 'freedom' to mean, 'do whatever you want even if someone else might get hurt'.
Why I love PodSave! Not beholden ( beyond TommyJohn and Indochino). Segments are frequent enough and long enough to break things down, and commentary is funny and honest and insightful. Same with Messagebox!
Thanks and Keep it up!
Well, a few of the advertisers do work that should not be supported. Betterhelp is one. I do wish Crooked did deep dives to understand what they are promoting. Betterhelp is an unhealthy model that pays badly and promotes dependence.
And Betterhelp had to pay millions in fines after the FTC found they had been selling their therapy clients private information for profit.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/02/ftc-data-misuse-betterhelp-00085182
Beautifully put: " they would rather stumble into autocracy than take a side."
So yes to out with the false objectivity and false fairness. But I do wonder if this is all just loyalty to a value. I have not read if anyone followed the money behind this choice and I DO care about that. And Dan, this is the best yet from you. Thanks, esp for the recommendations. Some I have found on my own, some not. I want to hear everyone here’s recs for what media you trust.
My favorite sources are Jay Kuo (The Status Kuo) and professor of political history Heather Cox Richardson, who writes Letters from an American almost daily with a recap and analysis of current events. She also does a live politics chat on most Tuesday afternoons and answers questions her followers have submitted. She is a national treasure!
I'd add Talking Points Memo, which runs on membership rather than ads. Also The Guardian, no ads.
Yes, I need to follow that one, too. Heather Cox Richardson cites it sometimes. I recently donated to The Guardian.
Thanks. That part did not need explaining.
Stephanie Miller has been making the “invest in progressive media” argument for literally decades.
Well said
Watch/ Read less, volunteer / donate more.
Or maybe "read less spot news but read more longform commentary and analysis." Because an army of uninformed door-knockers is not a step in the right direction.