Dear Stunning and Brave Goodthink Democracy Defender Margaret: Why do you think trust in mainstream media is at record lows? How will your Substack be any different from the groupthink liberals on here like Dan Rather, Judd Legum, Heather cox Richardson, etc? Will you feature real independent journalists who are speaking truth to power and exposing government/corporation corruption like Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, and Bari Weiss?
The extremism of the GOP has been a problem for the press to handle with your usual "he said she said "both sides reporting for a long time. Ornstein and Mann warned about in 2012 and the press basically changed nothing about their behavior.
They prefer to see it is some harmless sports contest with winners and losers and no real stakes, no matter how many people are hurt or threatened. I'm not super optimistic. Atrios said it well years ago (which I'm misquoting but something like) : "What GOP nonsense will the press take seriously today?"
No worries on replying. There was difficulty, as I understand it, in verifying the reports. The Times and the Post DID write about the laptop fairly early. I don’t have time right now to dig up those stories. They were very cautious, granted.
The NY POST reported the laptop as factual. E.g., or paraphrasing “It is Hunter’s Laptop and the hard drive revealed documents - emails etc. that are cringeworthy , containing info on Biden Family financial dealings between foreign entities and named and unnamed individuals w/ ties to the Biden family vmgsmipy including illegal illegal cash deals between the big guy and
blonde 200 Biden, whereas the New York Times started the rumor about Russian disinformation. The only danger right now as I see groupthink on the left side especially someone like you I think would be less biased if you want to sell us The journalism that you are producing on short chef stack figure claim that the FBI is showing away from appearing liberal when Matt Taibbi just released the entire Twitter files exposing FBI is the belly button of the information the government watch installed to prevent anyone conservative from having any opportunities in a Future USA design. What about the February or January 6 as you call them violent protests is was violent exactly. Did you are you calling out the police that shot and killed a US veteran because of the six people that died none of them were protest or not all of them were protesters or for it we’re on the process side at the riot I mean so-called when I saw once it was Revealed additional 40,000 hours we are already seen what appeared to be a riot of people no guns or fire or any of that stuff except for the police but what we saw on it expose by Tucker Carlson was a lot of time spent with conversations and little educational discussions by the camera police with the so-called leader of this band of pirates Being very friendly to one another cordial certainly nothing that would indicate what you’re describing going on.
Other than a few minutes probably when the woman was shot the US Air Force veteran was shot that’s the people were running from being shot.
The violence is coming from the left side The bias is coming from the left side the refusal to have a rational argument (a conversational intercourse where people speak or listen in either case are polite and willing at least minimally to consider an opinion opposite ones own in the same manner defined by walking in another man’s shoes that you would do if you wore man’s shoes i.e. walking in his shoes is debate style but less formal) about shades of gray is coming from the left side. Basically… And binary responses are all that is necessary either in our meaning you agree with our belief system or, you’re a racist-fascist-sexist-right-wing-extremist
This looks like you may have been replying to my message. You say that the Times and Post wrote about it early on but they were dismissive and helped amplify the Russian disinformation hoax.
If you want your Substack to be taken seriously you will need to analyst specifics if the current situation
1, The suppression and defamation of Jay Bhattacharya and other associated with the Great Barrington declaration.
2. The suppression of the lab leak theory which is no longer theory
3. The uncritical cheering for the devastating lockdowns
4. The dismissive hand waving over natural immunity
5. The dismissiveness of discussions of Covid therapies.
6. The dismissiveness of serious vaccine side effects. (I am vaccinated and boosted but instead of serious investigation and reporting of vaccine efficacy and side effects the MSM went into full throated defense of Big Pharma completely contrary to their pre-Covid hostility to big Pharma.
I could go on for pages before reaching the Russia hoax which we now know was understood by Obama, Biden and Comey to have been a Clinton initiated hoax even before they authorized an FBI investigation can you even fathom the implications of that?
The MSM have been the biggest contributors to the undermining of democracy, as demonstrated by sustained liberal bias and conservative censorship, 7 years of TDS, and 3 years of collusion with pharma and government promoting a money-driven vaccine narrative to the detriment of more appropriate solutions. Having abandoned their Fourth Estate role, MSM have truly earned the moniker “enemy of the people”.
We need all the intelligent criticism of news organizations and reporting we can get. Our democracy depends upon an informed electorate. The rise of both misinformation in stories that appear legitimate to folks who won’t question them, and corporate influence in our biggest news outlets adds up to a misled electorate, and puts our democracy in peril.
I worry more about a MSM that buries facts and actively works to censor informed opinions. Remember when they cried in unison that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian misinformation? If you want respect earn it! You are starting in the hole.
Yes, we all worry about their consistently demonstrated collective-inability to recognize and process facts.
A Constitutional Republic requires people to be able to think for themselves, to be able to recognize intentional, repetitive patterns in the waves of BS they’re spoon-fed on a daily basis by MSM in all its forms, to have the natural inclination to stop swimming in that cleverly-crafted stream of sewage, at least for moments sufficient to ask, “Why?”.
Why are all these smooth-talking, occasionally good looking, bobble-heads straining their upper lids to convince everyone what isn’t is or especially what is, isn’t?
I don't think you have the moral compass, the moral courage or even the moral intelligence to survey the media scene honestly. All you want to do is repeat tired progressive cliches.
Wow. I guess I am surprised that there is any such conversation about liberal bias in the media. Even as a liberal myself the bias is there and hard to ignore in the post, NYT and npr. Frankly super depressing that this writer thinks even noticing the class and progression bias is a problem.
1. Didn’t the founding fathers include freedom of the press in the Constitution because it is critical to democracy? You say the press can’t save democracy, but isn’t that essentially its Fourth Estate role? After all, you need an informed electorate to make informed decisions at the ballot box.
2. Your discussion didn’t go beyond national coverage. But it is at the local level where the press may be most failing its role. Your old haunt advertises, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” There are whole swaths of the country that are dark as night right now. Virtually no critical local coverage. Where voters get their marching orders from national propaganda outlets like Fox. Maybe corporate driven agendas have always impacted coverage, but today’s corporate media control is deliberately and cynically destroying local coverage in a way that didn’t occur years ago.
3. Do you think a return of the Fairness Doctrine could rein in propaganda media outlets?
As a former longtime journalist, I can recall having discussions in my newsroom as far back as the 1994 midterms about "both-siderism" vs. calling out the Republican agenda for what it was -- and I had been a lifelong Republican at that point. I am sorry and ashamed, but not surprised, that American journalism has learned so little in the ensuing 30 years.
Sure. "Calling out the Republican agenda for what it was", whatever that meant, would be advocacy. Biasing your reporting the way you see fit is propaganda. Keep it on the opinion page and call that what it is.
Just joining this series, looking forward to future podcasts. Sticking with the question “what can journalists do differently?”, I propose that broadcast media should drastically reduce their use of live interviews.
Traditionally, live broadcasting had a tie to immediate need. A news anchor might be handed a bulletin and be able to pass that news on right away. Developing stories of serious potential impact, such as natural disasters or a person with a gun holding others hostage would also merit live coverage.
But talking heads? Not so much. What has happened is that skilled spinners and disinformation peddlers use live air time to talk about whatever they want to talk about. The interviewer is left to try and push back with no time to check facts or prepare intelligent rebuttal. And, as is commonly understood, getting the words out there is a “win” from the spin perspective even if there is later pushback.
Recorded talking head interviews would put guests on notice that claptrap won’t even make it to airtime and lies will be pointed out. If mainstreams media wants to own the watchdog role the Constitution envisions, they should consider slashing their live airtime.
So you want journalists to just be able to selectively edit interviews to make the subject look bad.
Well, there's a flaw with your plan. Before the internet, people had to do interviews to get their message out there, even knowing reporters would pull various shenanigans. Now that the internet has made it possible to talk to your audience directly, journalists have become a lot less necessary. If you want to maintain any relevance, you would do well to remember that.
Yes, I am familiar with broadcasting before the Internet. Among other things, I worked in the control room of a news radio station in Washington DC. Responsible journalists do interviews and then report, including fact-checking, context and background. However, there is no reason they can’t also provide a recording of a full, unedited interview for review as a supplement to their reporting. It would keep them honest as well.
We are talking about ideas for strengthening responsible journalism. If you have a criticism, I hope you’ll be willing to think out loud on possible improvements. That
> We are talking about ideas for strengthening responsible journalism. If you have a criticism, I hope you’ll be willing to think out loud on possible improvements.
Alex Witt on MSNBC recently had Biden giving a speech in a tiny box in the lower corner with no audio. The main screen was trump's plane on the tarmac 🙄
are U arguing that the press needs to be MORE partisan than it already is? MSNBC, NYT, NPR and WaPo etc are all just Fox News for white liberals. during Trump they all adopted the FOX business model to solve the sagging ratings. so how can the same press that destroyed their own credibility by reporting to one side possibly save democracy? and you want them to double down? it’s over, you guys just don’t get it. unless this is another satire site and then the joke is on me...
If you think factually describing the effects of proposed policy is "advocacy" or "biasing your reporting the way you see fit" or "propaganda," I can't help you, son.
Dear Stunning and Brave Goodthink Democracy Defender Margaret: Why do you think trust in mainstream media is at record lows? How will your Substack be any different from the groupthink liberals on here like Dan Rather, Judd Legum, Heather cox Richardson, etc? Will you feature real independent journalists who are speaking truth to power and exposing government/corporation corruption like Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, and Bari Weiss?
PS: What is a woman?
The problem with people like the OP is they use “democracy” to mean technocratic oligarchy, and “fascism” to mean rule according to popular will.
‘Democracy’ that mythical screen behind which shysters and charlatans hide.
Love this
I'm in
Thank you!
The extremism of the GOP has been a problem for the press to handle with your usual "he said she said "both sides reporting for a long time. Ornstein and Mann warned about in 2012 and the press basically changed nothing about their behavior.
They prefer to see it is some harmless sports contest with winners and losers and no real stakes, no matter how many people are hurt or threatened. I'm not super optimistic. Atrios said it well years ago (which I'm misquoting but something like) : "What GOP nonsense will the press take seriously today?"
> The extremism of the GOP has been a problem
Ah yes extremism, like the belief that 2 plus 2 is 4, black is not white, and a man can't become a woman.
No worries on replying. There was difficulty, as I understand it, in verifying the reports. The Times and the Post DID write about the laptop fairly early. I don’t have time right now to dig up those stories. They were very cautious, granted.
The NY POST reported the laptop as factual. E.g., or paraphrasing “It is Hunter’s Laptop and the hard drive revealed documents - emails etc. that are cringeworthy , containing info on Biden Family financial dealings between foreign entities and named and unnamed individuals w/ ties to the Biden family vmgsmipy including illegal illegal cash deals between the big guy and
blonde 200 Biden, whereas the New York Times started the rumor about Russian disinformation. The only danger right now as I see groupthink on the left side especially someone like you I think would be less biased if you want to sell us The journalism that you are producing on short chef stack figure claim that the FBI is showing away from appearing liberal when Matt Taibbi just released the entire Twitter files exposing FBI is the belly button of the information the government watch installed to prevent anyone conservative from having any opportunities in a Future USA design. What about the February or January 6 as you call them violent protests is was violent exactly. Did you are you calling out the police that shot and killed a US veteran because of the six people that died none of them were protest or not all of them were protesters or for it we’re on the process side at the riot I mean so-called when I saw once it was Revealed additional 40,000 hours we are already seen what appeared to be a riot of people no guns or fire or any of that stuff except for the police but what we saw on it expose by Tucker Carlson was a lot of time spent with conversations and little educational discussions by the camera police with the so-called leader of this band of pirates Being very friendly to one another cordial certainly nothing that would indicate what you’re describing going on.
Other than a few minutes probably when the woman was shot the US Air Force veteran was shot that’s the people were running from being shot.
The violence is coming from the left side The bias is coming from the left side the refusal to have a rational argument (a conversational intercourse where people speak or listen in either case are polite and willing at least minimally to consider an opinion opposite ones own in the same manner defined by walking in another man’s shoes that you would do if you wore man’s shoes i.e. walking in his shoes is debate style but less formal) about shades of gray is coming from the left side. Basically… And binary responses are all that is necessary either in our meaning you agree with our belief system or, you’re a racist-fascist-sexist-right-wing-extremist
This looks like you may have been replying to my message. You say that the Times and Post wrote about it early on but they were dismissive and helped amplify the Russian disinformation hoax.
If you want your Substack to be taken seriously you will need to analyst specifics if the current situation
1, The suppression and defamation of Jay Bhattacharya and other associated with the Great Barrington declaration.
2. The suppression of the lab leak theory which is no longer theory
3. The uncritical cheering for the devastating lockdowns
4. The dismissive hand waving over natural immunity
5. The dismissiveness of discussions of Covid therapies.
6. The dismissiveness of serious vaccine side effects. (I am vaccinated and boosted but instead of serious investigation and reporting of vaccine efficacy and side effects the MSM went into full throated defense of Big Pharma completely contrary to their pre-Covid hostility to big Pharma.
I could go on for pages before reaching the Russia hoax which we now know was understood by Obama, Biden and Comey to have been a Clinton initiated hoax even before they authorized an FBI investigation can you even fathom the implications of that?
The MSM have been the biggest contributors to the undermining of democracy, as demonstrated by sustained liberal bias and conservative censorship, 7 years of TDS, and 3 years of collusion with pharma and government promoting a money-driven vaccine narrative to the detriment of more appropriate solutions. Having abandoned their Fourth Estate role, MSM have truly earned the moniker “enemy of the people”.
We need all the intelligent criticism of news organizations and reporting we can get. Our democracy depends upon an informed electorate. The rise of both misinformation in stories that appear legitimate to folks who won’t question them, and corporate influence in our biggest news outlets adds up to a misled electorate, and puts our democracy in peril.
Thank you, Mara. Your perspective is much appreciated. I worry about a section of the electorate that seems unreachable by facts.
I worry more about a MSM that buries facts and actively works to censor informed opinions. Remember when they cried in unison that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian misinformation? If you want respect earn it! You are starting in the hole.
Thanks for your comment. There were good reasons to proceed cautiously on that story but I understand your point.
I would love it if you would share the good reasons.
I appreciate your reply. I hardly dared imagine that you would reply.
Obviously, you mean Democrats.
Yes, we all worry about their consistently demonstrated collective-inability to recognize and process facts.
A Constitutional Republic requires people to be able to think for themselves, to be able to recognize intentional, repetitive patterns in the waves of BS they’re spoon-fed on a daily basis by MSM in all its forms, to have the natural inclination to stop swimming in that cleverly-crafted stream of sewage, at least for moments sufficient to ask, “Why?”.
Why are all these smooth-talking, occasionally good looking, bobble-heads straining their upper lids to convince everyone what isn’t is or especially what is, isn’t?
> Our democracy depends upon an informed electorate.
And thanks to the internet we're starting to get one, despite the best efforts of mainstream journalists.
I don't think you have the moral compass, the moral courage or even the moral intelligence to survey the media scene honestly. All you want to do is repeat tired progressive cliches.
I need to call you a waaambulance 🙄
Wow. I guess I am surprised that there is any such conversation about liberal bias in the media. Even as a liberal myself the bias is there and hard to ignore in the post, NYT and npr. Frankly super depressing that this writer thinks even noticing the class and progression bias is a problem.
A few things:
1. Didn’t the founding fathers include freedom of the press in the Constitution because it is critical to democracy? You say the press can’t save democracy, but isn’t that essentially its Fourth Estate role? After all, you need an informed electorate to make informed decisions at the ballot box.
2. Your discussion didn’t go beyond national coverage. But it is at the local level where the press may be most failing its role. Your old haunt advertises, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” There are whole swaths of the country that are dark as night right now. Virtually no critical local coverage. Where voters get their marching orders from national propaganda outlets like Fox. Maybe corporate driven agendas have always impacted coverage, but today’s corporate media control is deliberately and cynically destroying local coverage in a way that didn’t occur years ago.
3. Do you think a return of the Fairness Doctrine could rein in propaganda media outlets?
> Didn’t the founding fathers include freedom of the press in the Constitution because it is critical to democracy?
And yet it is the official "reporters" who are advocating abolishing it in the name of fighting "misinformation".
As a former longtime journalist, I can recall having discussions in my newsroom as far back as the 1994 midterms about "both-siderism" vs. calling out the Republican agenda for what it was -- and I had been a lifelong Republican at that point. I am sorry and ashamed, but not surprised, that American journalism has learned so little in the ensuing 30 years.
I always wonder if there is a desire to learn that lesson, Lex.
Your comment speaks volumes. Just not in the way you think it does.
Oh? Care to elaborate?
Sure. "Calling out the Republican agenda for what it was", whatever that meant, would be advocacy. Biasing your reporting the way you see fit is propaganda. Keep it on the opinion page and call that what it is.
LMFAO. molly gets paid fast
Just joining this series, looking forward to future podcasts. Sticking with the question “what can journalists do differently?”, I propose that broadcast media should drastically reduce their use of live interviews.
Traditionally, live broadcasting had a tie to immediate need. A news anchor might be handed a bulletin and be able to pass that news on right away. Developing stories of serious potential impact, such as natural disasters or a person with a gun holding others hostage would also merit live coverage.
But talking heads? Not so much. What has happened is that skilled spinners and disinformation peddlers use live air time to talk about whatever they want to talk about. The interviewer is left to try and push back with no time to check facts or prepare intelligent rebuttal. And, as is commonly understood, getting the words out there is a “win” from the spin perspective even if there is later pushback.
Recorded talking head interviews would put guests on notice that claptrap won’t even make it to airtime and lies will be pointed out. If mainstreams media wants to own the watchdog role the Constitution envisions, they should consider slashing their live airtime.
So you want journalists to just be able to selectively edit interviews to make the subject look bad.
Well, there's a flaw with your plan. Before the internet, people had to do interviews to get their message out there, even knowing reporters would pull various shenanigans. Now that the internet has made it possible to talk to your audience directly, journalists have become a lot less necessary. If you want to maintain any relevance, you would do well to remember that.
Yes, I am familiar with broadcasting before the Internet. Among other things, I worked in the control room of a news radio station in Washington DC. Responsible journalists do interviews and then report, including fact-checking, context and background. However, there is no reason they can’t also provide a recording of a full, unedited interview for review as a supplement to their reporting. It would keep them honest as well.
We are talking about ideas for strengthening responsible journalism. If you have a criticism, I hope you’ll be willing to think out loud on possible improvements. That
Kind of input is valuable.
> We are talking about ideas for strengthening responsible journalism. If you have a criticism, I hope you’ll be willing to think out loud on possible improvements.
Here's a very simple improvement: stop lying.
Forgot to mention: it is impossible to do a “truth sandwich” before you know what someone is going to say, as in live interviews.
Alex Witt on MSNBC recently had Biden giving a speech in a tiny box in the lower corner with no audio. The main screen was trump's plane on the tarmac 🙄
Well, he probably didn't want to humiliate Biden by broadcasting what he was saying.
are U arguing that the press needs to be MORE partisan than it already is? MSNBC, NYT, NPR and WaPo etc are all just Fox News for white liberals. during Trump they all adopted the FOX business model to solve the sagging ratings. so how can the same press that destroyed their own credibility by reporting to one side possibly save democracy? and you want them to double down? it’s over, you guys just don’t get it. unless this is another satire site and then the joke is on me...
Be careful--- The BBC is not Opinionless. A Major group of top Journalists have left in frustration.
Emily Maitless, Joh Soppel, Lewis Goodall, Andrew Marr, and more. Top Journos.
If you think factually describing the effects of proposed policy is "advocacy" or "biasing your reporting the way you see fit" or "propaganda," I can't help you, son.
Depends. Is the "factual description" actually accurate? If the policy does get adopted, it's possible to check.
A fact is what a progressive says it is as in Hunter Biden laptop is Russian misinformation.