This was really great. And I think it’s actually of vital importance that *puts on Tim Pool beanie* Legacy Media correct this, and for Dems to talk about this openly. The reason why grifters like Tim Pool, Russell Brand, Dave Ruben, The Daily Wire, etc. are able to snap up casual viewers and turn them into Republican voters is because everyone seems to recognize there IS an issue with how the media covers things. So these “just asking questions” libertarian types can point to a real issue, and radicalize their audience by acting as the salve.
I would love to hear more about the controversy surrounding access journalism, because I know it’s A Thing in the discourse but idk why
I like the mix of video and commentary. And I think you are a smart and concerned guy with an interesting viewpoint, which is why I read your stuff at Crooked and now here.
If only you were as hard on your fellow journalists as you are on the Dems! I agree that the journalists covering stories aren’t thinking about the bottom line. I would also break journalists into two camps, the political journalists and the rest. My (and many others’) beef with “the media” is strictly about the political journalists.
That Wapo piece you praised has a terrible headline and mentions that there is no evidence in graph 20. Graph 20! Most people do not read that far in a story. They read the headlines and the first 2,3, or 4 graphs and that’s it. Because they have other things to do. Which is why so much of the current coverage is pernicious. And if the NYT didn’t cover the story, Wapo wouldn’t give it much traction either. But they both can’t be undone by RW propaganda, which now truly sets the agenda, and through them the GOP.
Look at Santos; a small newspaper tried to get the majors interested and they shrugged. They didn’t bother to notice until AFTER he was in office. That is a disservice to their readers and an abdication of their role as the fourth estate.
I also disagree that they don’t want Trump. Biden’s sneakers are a story but Trump threatening to execute the highest ranking military officer? Meh, gets a shrug. The threats to democracy? I don’t think most political journalists take them seriously. Not if it would mean losing a source--even one who continually lies to them! (But let’s talk about Biden’s age AGAIN.) Trump was good for their careers and they really don’t like the Dems even if they, in their personal lives, lean more liberal. Trying to formulate good policy and actually help people (those damn dogooders!) offends these journalists’ deep rooted cynicism. (I admit I have come to loathe most of the political media I once admired and fall into the Maggie as Trump spokesperson camp.)
As for your opening, that they wouldn’t cover hearings into moon cheese, I wish I could be as sanguine. Of course they would! And they’d say: House opens investigation into moon; Dems claim, “it’s not made of cheese.” Because they can never state a fact as a fact if it might offend a source or the GOP reader they covet.
Yes, the news business has always been driven by a profit motive (with minor, and generally irrelevant, exceptions). What makes me nervous is a fractured landscape of lone gun news reporting and opinion creating. When I peruse or watch or listen to a (reputable, though never perfect) general publication or source I'm exposed to a variety of stuff that helps to round out my worldview and (I believe) avoid silo-ing. I love reading and listening to Brian, but it requires real effort (and subscription fees) to substack my way to being informed.
There was a good discussion on PSA today about legacy media and their coverage of Trump. I tend to agree that they still haven’t figured it out, but more than that, mainstream media in general has not figured out how to cover the new Republican Party. They are still stuck on the old “both sides”ism of coverage and for every wrong a R does they need to find a corresponding D “wrong”...the problem is that one side wants to set it all on fire. So using the both sides coverage is crap.
No matter what is covered they’ll be vilified. So cover the truth. I still remember the kerfluffle when the NYT said Trump had lied. Oh no!! They called it like it was!!
I like the vision and direction you're taking. Looking forward to more! Thanks as always for your work!
This was really great. And I think it’s actually of vital importance that *puts on Tim Pool beanie* Legacy Media correct this, and for Dems to talk about this openly. The reason why grifters like Tim Pool, Russell Brand, Dave Ruben, The Daily Wire, etc. are able to snap up casual viewers and turn them into Republican voters is because everyone seems to recognize there IS an issue with how the media covers things. So these “just asking questions” libertarian types can point to a real issue, and radicalize their audience by acting as the salve.
I would love to hear more about the controversy surrounding access journalism, because I know it’s A Thing in the discourse but idk why
I like the mix of video and commentary. And I think you are a smart and concerned guy with an interesting viewpoint, which is why I read your stuff at Crooked and now here.
If only you were as hard on your fellow journalists as you are on the Dems! I agree that the journalists covering stories aren’t thinking about the bottom line. I would also break journalists into two camps, the political journalists and the rest. My (and many others’) beef with “the media” is strictly about the political journalists.
That Wapo piece you praised has a terrible headline and mentions that there is no evidence in graph 20. Graph 20! Most people do not read that far in a story. They read the headlines and the first 2,3, or 4 graphs and that’s it. Because they have other things to do. Which is why so much of the current coverage is pernicious. And if the NYT didn’t cover the story, Wapo wouldn’t give it much traction either. But they both can’t be undone by RW propaganda, which now truly sets the agenda, and through them the GOP.
Look at Santos; a small newspaper tried to get the majors interested and they shrugged. They didn’t bother to notice until AFTER he was in office. That is a disservice to their readers and an abdication of their role as the fourth estate.
I also disagree that they don’t want Trump. Biden’s sneakers are a story but Trump threatening to execute the highest ranking military officer? Meh, gets a shrug. The threats to democracy? I don’t think most political journalists take them seriously. Not if it would mean losing a source--even one who continually lies to them! (But let’s talk about Biden’s age AGAIN.) Trump was good for their careers and they really don’t like the Dems even if they, in their personal lives, lean more liberal. Trying to formulate good policy and actually help people (those damn dogooders!) offends these journalists’ deep rooted cynicism. (I admit I have come to loathe most of the political media I once admired and fall into the Maggie as Trump spokesperson camp.)
As for your opening, that they wouldn’t cover hearings into moon cheese, I wish I could be as sanguine. Of course they would! And they’d say: House opens investigation into moon; Dems claim, “it’s not made of cheese.” Because they can never state a fact as a fact if it might offend a source or the GOP reader they covet.
https://x.com/radiofreetom/status/1709220593197887858?s=46&t=HAyNgRIxySh6GGNFo1htYw
Yes, the news business has always been driven by a profit motive (with minor, and generally irrelevant, exceptions). What makes me nervous is a fractured landscape of lone gun news reporting and opinion creating. When I peruse or watch or listen to a (reputable, though never perfect) general publication or source I'm exposed to a variety of stuff that helps to round out my worldview and (I believe) avoid silo-ing. I love reading and listening to Brian, but it requires real effort (and subscription fees) to substack my way to being informed.
There was a good discussion on PSA today about legacy media and their coverage of Trump. I tend to agree that they still haven’t figured it out, but more than that, mainstream media in general has not figured out how to cover the new Republican Party. They are still stuck on the old “both sides”ism of coverage and for every wrong a R does they need to find a corresponding D “wrong”...the problem is that one side wants to set it all on fire. So using the both sides coverage is crap.
No matter what is covered they’ll be vilified. So cover the truth. I still remember the kerfluffle when the NYT said Trump had lied. Oh no!! They called it like it was!!