“The press” only cares about profit. Since Biden has been President, their viewership has decreased simply because people are breathing a little easier. They need to seek chaos to bring their viewership back to pre-Biden levels. It’s infuriating. Fox is fox, but all the legitimate news outlets are no more concerned about the good of the country. It’s all capitalism run amuck.
“The press” only cares about profit. Since Biden has been President, their viewership has decreased simply because people are breathing a little easier. They need to seek chaos to bring their viewership back to pre-Biden levels. It’s infuriating. Fox is fox, but all the legitimate news outlets are no more concerned about the good of the country. It’s all capitalism run amuck.
Cheri, There are solid news and public affairs reports available to us in various forms. Fox stands for itself not other outlets. Corporate ownership of media, particularly of local television news, has negative effects, but that is not the entire picture. I was an associate producer of the daily news broadcast of a local public television station and worked in public affairs for many years in commercial and public television. It is disquieting for me to read generalizations, which state that 'The press' only cares about profit'. Many reporters, researchers, production staff, writers, etc., of public affairs programming work very long days, endure many sleepless nights, dig hard to get the facts and find good sources. That does not include the deadlines, synthesizing information to compose a meaningful story and a lot more. Where do we get the investigative pieces; up-to-date news of the day; deeper understanding of public figures and the functions of government; entertainment reviews; innovations; business outlooks; sports reports, etc.? Imagine Democracy without the Free Press.
What you describe was my experience working as reporter/anchor in two commercial stations (ABC & NBC) in Orlando back in the mid-80`s....hours and hours(happily) covering space industry, hurricanes, local politics, theme park fueled growth, water, Cuban connection, etc. Producers worked long and hard to get a good news orogram on the air. At that time one of the stations was locally owned and we had to attend to community needs to keep our license. It is such a different story now as outside companies own the stations. In one case, recently, the first thing they did was to cut ( significantly) the news staff, firing or retiring the highest paid veterans who actually had networks of sources and historical memory. The suspicion by those who work there is that the outside owners/investors will keep the station for a few years and then sell it to someone else. Having been a hard working reporter I am the first to stand up for hard working journalists. It is not their fault that journalism is often the victim of absentee ownership.and changing business models in the local commercial arena. The first 11 minutes of local news casts in our commercial stations are typically a "crime and accident" police report; no one is assigned to cover local government as a "beat" and I cannot remember the last time I saw an in -depth,investigative report done by a local reporter. News directors cannot afford to dedicate a crew to that kind of time consuming digging. I hear this repeatedly from friends still in the business and from those who have had to leave it to teach or do PR or other work.
Our local PBS station (under the umbrella of a University) is constantly struggling for money to do what it does best but getting the best national PBS programming costs local stations more money than people realize. Frontline and other similar investigative programs take time, personnel and money that local stations do not have. And every year someone in Washington objects to "paying" for PBS!!!
So, while I am a cheerleader for good journalism I am watching it gasping for breath locally, both because of changing business models and because the news competition arena has exploded with 24 hr news channels and ubiquitous social media sites. Our local NPR radio station (also always needing money) is an oasis of good programming. Not sure how long they will be able to hold on.
Thank you for your continual, substantive sharings here. You must have been a great producer.
Carol, your comment strongly registered with me. One of the big problems we have in our country is the drastic weakening of local news on the air and in print. It is a crisis and part of our loss of community. When I was an executive producer of a consumer documentary series on WCBS-TV, everyone was fired except for me and my boss. It was brutal and unforgivable as well as the beginning of the end of my work there. The Free Press is crucial for democracy. It is deeply wounded as is so much else.
I am continually amazed at the quality of NPR and PBS, and the failure of large portions of the public to recognize the true gems that are readily available to them!
Today most of the good investigative reporting comes from independent sources written by journalists let go from their old jobs thanks to the corporate media profit motive. Don't get me wrong there are still some good M$M corporate journalists but they are becoming fewer and farther in between.
Local media outside public TV and Radio is just about gone thanks to corporate buyouts and consolidations particularly by hard right wing concerns.
Christopher do you have data to support your claims? My practice is to hesitate in making generalizations without supporting evidence. The other day, I read a very negative comment you made concerning Rachel Maddow's journalistic achievements for the last number of years. I am a viewer of her show and find the quality of her original research rare and exceptional. She was the first to break the Flint lead and possibly Legionella bacteria crisis on a national basis, and she stuck with it. That is just one example of her modus operandi. Again, I did not read the basis for your fault finding.
Here in Columbus, OH we no longer have a local paper. The Columbus Dispatch was once a staunch Republican paper with a lot of clout. Nowadays it's trucked in from Indianapolis and is hard to distinguish in size from a supermarket flyer.
Yes I was pretty hard on Rachel but all my examples were true and I also praised her for her pre MSNBC. I omitted the days, weeks and months of her Russiagate baiting which was obviously done to drive up the numbers for advertisers. Many shows teased BREAKING NEWS only to fizzle at the end.
It's very easy to verify the plight of journalists in the 21st century. "U.S. newsroom employment has fallen 26% since 2008"
Rachel is more of a documenter than a journalist. She didn't get her doctorate for being afraid of intensive research. If you've ever seen video of her working you see the joy she gets in digging for facts. I'll never challenge her research or love of tying things together much like HCR.
It's a bit of a fool's errand to not speak glowingly about her, but my complaints are real, at least to me and I know people who share them.
I wish she would not have renewed her contract and gone independent herself so she could return to the AAR Rachel, maybe even here on Substack. She probably wouldn't make her MSNBC salary here but she wouldn't be scavenging for cans along side the road either. The world would be a better place if she did.
Hello Christopher. I am aware of the loss of local news and its dire effects on community, connection between people, common knowledge, current events, local business, sports, entertainment... and democracy.
I didn't see your many or any examples of 'what' concerning Rachel Maddow's work. Did you read Blowout? If you did read it, have you thought about how her knowledge of Russia's oil and gas businesses as well as its meddling in our elections contributed to her reporting on Russia?
'documenter'
in British English
(ˈdɒkjʊməntə)
NOUN
a person who documents
I think 'documenter' does not cover Rachel's work in the least and cannot know what may be behind you efforts to minimize her accomplishments.
journalist
(dʒɜrnəlɪst)
COUNTABLE NOUN
A journalist is a person whose job is to collect news and write about it for newspapers, magazines, television, or radio.
Synonyms: reporter, writer, correspondent, newsman or newswoman
You chose 'fool's errand' for not speaking 'glowingly' about her as a label for your opinion of her work.
'unpunctuated: fools errand'
a task or activity that has no hope of success.
"he sent gullible freshmen on fool's errands" (definitions from Collins)
I don't know that you receive requests to critique Rachel with the expectation that you will speak well of her. My reply referred to your unfavorable comment about her, which, clearly, is very unlike my own assessment.
I also don't know why you wish her to work independently, but she seems to be an important figure to you.
I see that you didn't put together the various sources concerning to what degree far more top notch journalists are now working independently versus those employed by media companies. The tremendous changes in media and news are obvious to those of us who have been in the business and I am sure to many others.
Thank you for going to the trouble to elaborate on your comments. Cheers!
No, I didn't read Blowout but that's what I mean about her love of researching and doing documentary style journalism. She's essentially a citizen journalist since she didn't major in J in college. She got a gig on the college radio station where she honed her skill, love actually, in explaining things.
I wish she'd go rogue and be free of the shackles of profit driven media. She'd be much more fun to watch and wouldn't have to tailor the show to set up the commercial breaks.
I worked in television for about 5 years, started behind the camera which led to doing news, sports and weather on the other side for commercial stations in small and large markets. Also, I was a broadcast switcher for a PBS station. Television good work if you can get it but 5 years was enough for me. What I liked about it the most is it rarely routine. What I didn't like is you run into a lot of on-air folks with oversized egos but not all. I noticed the best on air folks were the same off camera as they were on.
You're welcome and thanks. It's an exercise of love to try and connect people and promote understanding. There is no monetary goal but it let's me play with cool tech. ;-)
Been in MSM all my adult life, Fern. Christopher is sharing what’s been a trend for a coupla decades now. I appreciate your insistence on sources and offering only the truth here. Sadly, Christopher is dead right. The news media cannot continue to do its best work in the midst of deep pockets and profiteering.
It’s among the delights of writers like HRC — she includes her sources.
'A trend' does provide data to support that 'most of the good investigative reporting comes from independent sources.' What is meant by 'independent sources', does that mean, no commercial support? What does it mean?
On the one hand, you write that you 'appreciate' my 'insistence on sources and offering only the truth here' while going on to write that 'Christopher is dead right'.
First, SLWeston, 'insistence' in not an apt word for my asking if Christopher had any backup for his claims. In addition, I didn't request 'offering only the truth here'. Asking about reputable sources would be a sensible reading of what I wrote. What is your basis for writing that 'Christopher is dead right'?
I have been the reading and viewing excellent journalism in the Washington Post; the New York Times; the Atlantic Magazine, the New Yorker, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Politico, AP, Reuters; Vox; University sites, such as Stanford and Univ. of Penn. as well as many others. I do not oppose yours and Christopher's claims, except to ask what your sources are for them.
Some of LFAAs' subscribers understandably complain about the nature of reporting about the country's withdrawal from Afghanistan, and there have been general attacks on the press. My practice in news and public affairs programming was to generally observe journalistic standards. I still attempt to follow that practice. When making personal statements, I try to remember to label them as such.
I hope this clarifies my point of view concerning this subject.
I live in the capital of Oregon, Salem, and for years we have had nothing but a Gannett rag. I read what I want online, mostly the obits which they outsource and that outfit is going by date posted I guess. Recently it was alphabetical and started with today's obits. I guess that it is too costly to do that.
This is the problem. Gannett and other corporations trivializing local print journalism and using it as a propaganda machine, and Sinclair and similar bad actors doing the same with broadcast journalism.
And now the Register Guard in Eugene is a Gannett rag. I read updated news about the Ducks in the Oregonian. Sinclair is channel two and we never watch that. We do have an online outfit called the Salem Reporter which has a morning and an evening post. I also belong to several groups who post info about what's happening in Salem. My next-door group has good moderators and they post a lot of updates which you might find in the rag, if at all, two days later. Lots of junk on there too, but someone reported a guy wandering around on a major road and one of the moderators and a couple other people went out and found him and called an ambulance. So some good.
I know all these things but have never been able to tie them up in such a nice neat bundle before, thank you! Admittedly, it usually takes a woman to say in 50 words for what I would need 500. Take the rest of the day off with pay.
“The press” only cares about profit. Since Biden has been President, their viewership has decreased simply because people are breathing a little easier. They need to seek chaos to bring their viewership back to pre-Biden levels. It’s infuriating. Fox is fox, but all the legitimate news outlets are no more concerned about the good of the country. It’s all capitalism run amuck.
Cheri, There are solid news and public affairs reports available to us in various forms. Fox stands for itself not other outlets. Corporate ownership of media, particularly of local television news, has negative effects, but that is not the entire picture. I was an associate producer of the daily news broadcast of a local public television station and worked in public affairs for many years in commercial and public television. It is disquieting for me to read generalizations, which state that 'The press' only cares about profit'. Many reporters, researchers, production staff, writers, etc., of public affairs programming work very long days, endure many sleepless nights, dig hard to get the facts and find good sources. That does not include the deadlines, synthesizing information to compose a meaningful story and a lot more. Where do we get the investigative pieces; up-to-date news of the day; deeper understanding of public figures and the functions of government; entertainment reviews; innovations; business outlooks; sports reports, etc.? Imagine Democracy without the Free Press.
What you describe was my experience working as reporter/anchor in two commercial stations (ABC & NBC) in Orlando back in the mid-80`s....hours and hours(happily) covering space industry, hurricanes, local politics, theme park fueled growth, water, Cuban connection, etc. Producers worked long and hard to get a good news orogram on the air. At that time one of the stations was locally owned and we had to attend to community needs to keep our license. It is such a different story now as outside companies own the stations. In one case, recently, the first thing they did was to cut ( significantly) the news staff, firing or retiring the highest paid veterans who actually had networks of sources and historical memory. The suspicion by those who work there is that the outside owners/investors will keep the station for a few years and then sell it to someone else. Having been a hard working reporter I am the first to stand up for hard working journalists. It is not their fault that journalism is often the victim of absentee ownership.and changing business models in the local commercial arena. The first 11 minutes of local news casts in our commercial stations are typically a "crime and accident" police report; no one is assigned to cover local government as a "beat" and I cannot remember the last time I saw an in -depth,investigative report done by a local reporter. News directors cannot afford to dedicate a crew to that kind of time consuming digging. I hear this repeatedly from friends still in the business and from those who have had to leave it to teach or do PR or other work.
Our local PBS station (under the umbrella of a University) is constantly struggling for money to do what it does best but getting the best national PBS programming costs local stations more money than people realize. Frontline and other similar investigative programs take time, personnel and money that local stations do not have. And every year someone in Washington objects to "paying" for PBS!!!
So, while I am a cheerleader for good journalism I am watching it gasping for breath locally, both because of changing business models and because the news competition arena has exploded with 24 hr news channels and ubiquitous social media sites. Our local NPR radio station (also always needing money) is an oasis of good programming. Not sure how long they will be able to hold on.
Thank you for your continual, substantive sharings here. You must have been a great producer.
Carol, your comment strongly registered with me. One of the big problems we have in our country is the drastic weakening of local news on the air and in print. It is a crisis and part of our loss of community. When I was an executive producer of a consumer documentary series on WCBS-TV, everyone was fired except for me and my boss. It was brutal and unforgivable as well as the beginning of the end of my work there. The Free Press is crucial for democracy. It is deeply wounded as is so much else.
Salud!, Carol.
I am continually amazed at the quality of NPR and PBS, and the failure of large portions of the public to recognize the true gems that are readily available to them!
An excellent capsule description, Carol, of the plight of the news industry today. Thank you.
Today most of the good investigative reporting comes from independent sources written by journalists let go from their old jobs thanks to the corporate media profit motive. Don't get me wrong there are still some good M$M corporate journalists but they are becoming fewer and farther in between.
Local media outside public TV and Radio is just about gone thanks to corporate buyouts and consolidations particularly by hard right wing concerns.
Christopher do you have data to support your claims? My practice is to hesitate in making generalizations without supporting evidence. The other day, I read a very negative comment you made concerning Rachel Maddow's journalistic achievements for the last number of years. I am a viewer of her show and find the quality of her original research rare and exceptional. She was the first to break the Flint lead and possibly Legionella bacteria crisis on a national basis, and she stuck with it. That is just one example of her modus operandi. Again, I did not read the basis for your fault finding.
Hi FERN,
Sure just count all the independent journalists on Substack (Sirota, Taibbi, Legum) or who have just gone out on their own. Others can be found here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/21/us/local-news-lost-stories.html.
Here in Columbus, OH we no longer have a local paper. The Columbus Dispatch was once a staunch Republican paper with a lot of clout. Nowadays it's trucked in from Indianapolis and is hard to distinguish in size from a supermarket flyer.
Yes I was pretty hard on Rachel but all my examples were true and I also praised her for her pre MSNBC. I omitted the days, weeks and months of her Russiagate baiting which was obviously done to drive up the numbers for advertisers. Many shows teased BREAKING NEWS only to fizzle at the end.
It's very easy to verify the plight of journalists in the 21st century. "U.S. newsroom employment has fallen 26% since 2008"
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/13/u-s-newsroom-employment-has-fallen-26-since-2008/
is just one of the many exaples from my search for "https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Journalists+who+have+lost+their+jobs&t=h_&ia=web".
Rachel is more of a documenter than a journalist. She didn't get her doctorate for being afraid of intensive research. If you've ever seen video of her working you see the joy she gets in digging for facts. I'll never challenge her research or love of tying things together much like HCR.
It's a bit of a fool's errand to not speak glowingly about her, but my complaints are real, at least to me and I know people who share them.
I wish she would not have renewed her contract and gone independent herself so she could return to the AAR Rachel, maybe even here on Substack. She probably wouldn't make her MSNBC salary here but she wouldn't be scavenging for cans along side the road either. The world would be a better place if she did.
Have a good day!
Hello Christopher. I am aware of the loss of local news and its dire effects on community, connection between people, common knowledge, current events, local business, sports, entertainment... and democracy.
I didn't see your many or any examples of 'what' concerning Rachel Maddow's work. Did you read Blowout? If you did read it, have you thought about how her knowledge of Russia's oil and gas businesses as well as its meddling in our elections contributed to her reporting on Russia?
'documenter'
in British English
(ˈdɒkjʊməntə)
NOUN
a person who documents
I think 'documenter' does not cover Rachel's work in the least and cannot know what may be behind you efforts to minimize her accomplishments.
journalist
(dʒɜrnəlɪst)
COUNTABLE NOUN
A journalist is a person whose job is to collect news and write about it for newspapers, magazines, television, or radio.
Synonyms: reporter, writer, correspondent, newsman or newswoman
You chose 'fool's errand' for not speaking 'glowingly' about her as a label for your opinion of her work.
'unpunctuated: fools errand'
a task or activity that has no hope of success.
"he sent gullible freshmen on fool's errands" (definitions from Collins)
I don't know that you receive requests to critique Rachel with the expectation that you will speak well of her. My reply referred to your unfavorable comment about her, which, clearly, is very unlike my own assessment.
I also don't know why you wish her to work independently, but she seems to be an important figure to you.
I see that you didn't put together the various sources concerning to what degree far more top notch journalists are now working independently versus those employed by media companies. The tremendous changes in media and news are obvious to those of us who have been in the business and I am sure to many others.
Thank you for going to the trouble to elaborate on your comments. Cheers!
No, I didn't read Blowout but that's what I mean about her love of researching and doing documentary style journalism. She's essentially a citizen journalist since she didn't major in J in college. She got a gig on the college radio station where she honed her skill, love actually, in explaining things.
I wish she'd go rogue and be free of the shackles of profit driven media. She'd be much more fun to watch and wouldn't have to tailor the show to set up the commercial breaks.
I worked in television for about 5 years, started behind the camera which led to doing news, sports and weather on the other side for commercial stations in small and large markets. Also, I was a broadcast switcher for a PBS station. Television good work if you can get it but 5 years was enough for me. What I liked about it the most is it rarely routine. What I didn't like is you run into a lot of on-air folks with oversized egos but not all. I noticed the best on air folks were the same off camera as they were on.
Thank you for sharing your background, Christopher. I wish you success with your podcasts.
You're welcome and thanks. It's an exercise of love to try and connect people and promote understanding. There is no monetary goal but it let's me play with cool tech. ;-)
Been in MSM all my adult life, Fern. Christopher is sharing what’s been a trend for a coupla decades now. I appreciate your insistence on sources and offering only the truth here. Sadly, Christopher is dead right. The news media cannot continue to do its best work in the midst of deep pockets and profiteering.
It’s among the delights of writers like HRC — she includes her sources.
'A trend' does provide data to support that 'most of the good investigative reporting comes from independent sources.' What is meant by 'independent sources', does that mean, no commercial support? What does it mean?
On the one hand, you write that you 'appreciate' my 'insistence on sources and offering only the truth here' while going on to write that 'Christopher is dead right'.
First, SLWeston, 'insistence' in not an apt word for my asking if Christopher had any backup for his claims. In addition, I didn't request 'offering only the truth here'. Asking about reputable sources would be a sensible reading of what I wrote. What is your basis for writing that 'Christopher is dead right'?
I have been the reading and viewing excellent journalism in the Washington Post; the New York Times; the Atlantic Magazine, the New Yorker, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Politico, AP, Reuters; Vox; University sites, such as Stanford and Univ. of Penn. as well as many others. I do not oppose yours and Christopher's claims, except to ask what your sources are for them.
Some of LFAAs' subscribers understandably complain about the nature of reporting about the country's withdrawal from Afghanistan, and there have been general attacks on the press. My practice in news and public affairs programming was to generally observe journalistic standards. I still attempt to follow that practice. When making personal statements, I try to remember to label them as such.
I hope this clarifies my point of view concerning this subject.
I live in the capital of Oregon, Salem, and for years we have had nothing but a Gannett rag. I read what I want online, mostly the obits which they outsource and that outfit is going by date posted I guess. Recently it was alphabetical and started with today's obits. I guess that it is too costly to do that.
This is the problem. Gannett and other corporations trivializing local print journalism and using it as a propaganda machine, and Sinclair and similar bad actors doing the same with broadcast journalism.
And now the Register Guard in Eugene is a Gannett rag. I read updated news about the Ducks in the Oregonian. Sinclair is channel two and we never watch that. We do have an online outfit called the Salem Reporter which has a morning and an evening post. I also belong to several groups who post info about what's happening in Salem. My next-door group has good moderators and they post a lot of updates which you might find in the rag, if at all, two days later. Lots of junk on there too, but someone reported a guy wandering around on a major road and one of the moderators and a couple other people went out and found him and called an ambulance. So some good.
Yes! My thoughts exactly. Follow the money, follow the ratings.
Exactamundo. No drama no dollars.
I know all these things but have never been able to tie them up in such a nice neat bundle before, thank you! Admittedly, it usually takes a woman to say in 50 words for what I would need 500. Take the rest of the day off with pay.
Thank you, Cheri.