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.
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.
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.
Why do you think that the New York Times, CNN or NBC, etc, would be less profitable if they became defenders of Democracy? The MSM are losing their audience because its both-sides, horse-race coverage is alienating its base. Who reads? Who is actively engaged by the news? Who values truth? Who cares about democracy? Who is going to stop subscribing and watching because the MSM fail to tell the true story? So, I think the MSM would become more profitable if they did what we all know is the right thing.
Their profit model is wacko, sclerotic. Their editorial positions are thick. Their grip of the culture is about thirty years behind the times. As Ted Gioia (another substack worth following) points out, the MSM ignore the prospering micro-culture of blogs and social media. The world has changed, and they have failed to adapt. The MSM are Institutions evolved to generate capital in the Industrial age; they are dying because we have entered the Knowledge era, information is cheap, the scarce resource is attention, and they lumbering on, doing the same-old, same-old industrial era schtick not because it is profitable but because they are clueless and complacent.
I would argue that the root cause of the Ronna McDaniel hire is not the pursuit of profitability. I think if you could cross examine the executives who make the editorial and hiring decisions, you would find a cadre of people who came of age in the Reagan years and lean right: conservative in a Reaganesque way, clubby, blinkered, conventional, complacent (even smug), self-important, risk-averse, unimaginative, greedy. The root problem is the mindset of the executive class not the incentives. The MSM would be more profitable if the executive class stepped up, but why would they bother? They personally are doing just fine, and should MAGA succeed, they will want to cozy up and play nice.
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.
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!
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.
Democrats smash all fundraising efforts in a single day, bringing in a staggering $24M in one event, demonstrating the power of the former Presidents along with the current candidate.
Democrats had their leashes pulled tight in the face of opposition within the party; New York has again demonstrated they will continue to control US policy for the indefinite future.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why do you think that the New York Times, CNN or NBC, etc, would be less profitable if they became defenders of Democracy? The MSM are losing their audience because its both-sides, horse-race coverage is alienating its base. Who reads? Who is actively engaged by the news? Who values truth? Who cares about democracy? Who is going to stop subscribing and watching because the MSM fail to tell the true story? So, I think the MSM would become more profitable if they did what we all know is the right thing.
Their profit model is wacko, sclerotic. Their editorial positions are thick. Their grip of the culture is about thirty years behind the times. As Ted Gioia (another substack worth following) points out, the MSM ignore the prospering micro-culture of blogs and social media. The world has changed, and they have failed to adapt. The MSM are Institutions evolved to generate capital in the Industrial age; they are dying because we have entered the Knowledge era, information is cheap, the scarce resource is attention, and they lumbering on, doing the same-old, same-old industrial era schtick not because it is profitable but because they are clueless and complacent.
I would argue that the root cause of the Ronna McDaniel hire is not the pursuit of profitability. I think if you could cross examine the executives who make the editorial and hiring decisions, you would find a cadre of people who came of age in the Reagan years and lean right: conservative in a Reaganesque way, clubby, blinkered, conventional, complacent (even smug), self-important, risk-averse, unimaginative, greedy. The root problem is the mindset of the executive class not the incentives. The MSM would be more profitable if the executive class stepped up, but why would they bother? They personally are doing just fine, and should MAGA succeed, they will want to cozy up and play nice.
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.
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!
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.
Stephanie Miller has been making the “invest in progressive media” argument for literally decades.
Opposing headlines from yesterday:
Democrats smash all fundraising efforts in a single day, bringing in a staggering $24M in one event, demonstrating the power of the former Presidents along with the current candidate.
Democrats had their leashes pulled tight in the face of opposition within the party; New York has again demonstrated they will continue to control US policy for the indefinite future.
Choose your own adventure.