From my rather uninformed perspective, I have come to think that there must several, not mutually exclusive, reasons for this state of affairs. One, must be predominantly corporate in origin. I think it's likely (but, what do I know?) that many mainstream media are owned by conservatives (writ large), and in any event and are consciously…
From my rather uninformed perspective, I have come to think that there must several, not mutually exclusive, reasons for this state of affairs. One, must be predominantly corporate in origin. I think it's likely (but, what do I know?) that many mainstream media are owned by conservatives (writ large), and in any event and are consciously (or not) representing a world view. In and of itself, representing a particular slant has, I would guess, a long journalistic history. But, in current implementations, such as the NYT, there feels like (to me) an inherent dishonesty to it. In particular, it seems to me that many headlines, sub headings, and stories, serve more of a propagandistic purpose than a journalistic one. To put it another way, the numerous articles about the coming "red wave" in the NYT (and others) weren't simply expressing a wrong headed philosophy of journalistic practice; instead, they cumulatively seem to be creating a feedback loop in order to advocate for a desired outcome.
Another aspect of current journalistic practice that seems increasingly prevalent is the adoption of terminology that is never clearly defined, but is used in a nudge-nudge, wink-wink sort of way. Terms (woke!) are therefore malleable and loose any grounding semantics whatsoever. Terminology becomes a form of signaling weaponry, but serves rather to give the appearance of thought, without bothering with the messy business of thinking. This, I think, is related to your large points about scandals: "Whitewater" seemed to mean something, and that was enough. The fact that it wasn't clear only helped to employ it more broadly as a cudgel to beat the reading public over the head. And, of course, clear thinking is not the hallmark of having been beaten over the head repeatedly.
Finally, I have a question. Historically, has there ever been a period when a better, more honest, form of journalism was the norm? I am not asking this cynically, but I'm pretty unaware of journalistic history.
On your closing question: I don't think there was ever a "golden age" of coverage. Every age has had its strengths and weaknesses. The post-WW II Cronkite / etc "golden age" had enormous virtues — of which the main one was a more-or-less enforced nationwide audience, since for technology reasons there were only three broadcast networks. And the reporters mainly came from a news-rather-than-"hot takes" tradition.
But it had huge limits too. The "news" was condensed into 30 minutes each evening. As many people have noted, it was a top-down approach to what mattered. Civil rights protests, the Vietnam war, etc "mattered" when the news editors decided they mattered.
We have more range now, and very different problems. The economic-model collapse of local journalism is probably the worst phenomenon now. More on that anon.
For what it's worth, my experience has long been that *newsroom culture* matters more than ownership in most journalistic decisions. Of course editorial pages are a different matter. But consider the WSJ: Its edit page is the print version of Fox News, and was even before Fox existed. But its "news" operation has been less prone to the kind of narratives we're talking about — even though it's under Murdoch's ownership.
(I once edited a news magazine, and I can tell you that the owner played a significant role in what that magazine did and covered. But again that was a non-mainstream case.)
From my rather uninformed perspective, I have come to think that there must several, not mutually exclusive, reasons for this state of affairs. One, must be predominantly corporate in origin. I think it's likely (but, what do I know?) that many mainstream media are owned by conservatives (writ large), and in any event and are consciously (or not) representing a world view. In and of itself, representing a particular slant has, I would guess, a long journalistic history. But, in current implementations, such as the NYT, there feels like (to me) an inherent dishonesty to it. In particular, it seems to me that many headlines, sub headings, and stories, serve more of a propagandistic purpose than a journalistic one. To put it another way, the numerous articles about the coming "red wave" in the NYT (and others) weren't simply expressing a wrong headed philosophy of journalistic practice; instead, they cumulatively seem to be creating a feedback loop in order to advocate for a desired outcome.
Another aspect of current journalistic practice that seems increasingly prevalent is the adoption of terminology that is never clearly defined, but is used in a nudge-nudge, wink-wink sort of way. Terms (woke!) are therefore malleable and loose any grounding semantics whatsoever. Terminology becomes a form of signaling weaponry, but serves rather to give the appearance of thought, without bothering with the messy business of thinking. This, I think, is related to your large points about scandals: "Whitewater" seemed to mean something, and that was enough. The fact that it wasn't clear only helped to employ it more broadly as a cudgel to beat the reading public over the head. And, of course, clear thinking is not the hallmark of having been beaten over the head repeatedly.
Finally, I have a question. Historically, has there ever been a period when a better, more honest, form of journalism was the norm? I am not asking this cynically, but I'm pretty unaware of journalistic history.
Great article.
Thank you.
On your closing question: I don't think there was ever a "golden age" of coverage. Every age has had its strengths and weaknesses. The post-WW II Cronkite / etc "golden age" had enormous virtues — of which the main one was a more-or-less enforced nationwide audience, since for technology reasons there were only three broadcast networks. And the reporters mainly came from a news-rather-than-"hot takes" tradition.
But it had huge limits too. The "news" was condensed into 30 minutes each evening. As many people have noted, it was a top-down approach to what mattered. Civil rights protests, the Vietnam war, etc "mattered" when the news editors decided they mattered.
We have more range now, and very different problems. The economic-model collapse of local journalism is probably the worst phenomenon now. More on that anon.
For what it's worth, my experience has long been that *newsroom culture* matters more than ownership in most journalistic decisions. Of course editorial pages are a different matter. But consider the WSJ: Its edit page is the print version of Fox News, and was even before Fox existed. But its "news" operation has been less prone to the kind of narratives we're talking about — even though it's under Murdoch's ownership.
(I once edited a news magazine, and I can tell you that the owner played a significant role in what that magazine did and covered. But again that was a non-mainstream case.)