In order to be informed through substack, it would cost the average person close to $1,000 a year. That would give someone a well rounded, many sided, (to mix metaphors) view of news and opinion. And that would be a huge luxury for most people.
I think it is imperative that we try to come up with a way to inform without relying on a model of capitalism that has all but paywalled the average person out. Using Tik Tok, IG, Twitter, The Joe Rogan podcast (and all the other copy cat versions) is no way to create an informed populace. I don't have the answer. I am more than a little worried though for the under 35-40 year olds when it comes to "information".
I want journalists to make a living. But having to subscribe to numerous substacks is more then many of us can afford. Some sort of bundling would help a lot.
I wish I could "like" this 1000 times. Many people just don't have money to subscribe to anything because every dollar is being used for food, rent/mortgage/utilities and insurance -- particularly health insurance. The substack people who allow comments even to non-subscribers are doing a service which allows those people to engage and express the issues that are really important to them -- basically having enough money to survive on a daily basis.
And this is why I contribute a monthly donation to Idaho Public TV (PBS).
There are so many towns and communities in Idaho's rural and remote areas where the need to prioritize food, shelter, and health and safety is an absolute necessity (as you mentioned Sherry). PBS programming for kids and adults of all ages is free to view because of viewers' donations, especially now after Congress gutted appropriated funding with an ill-informed recission.
Most of what I've learned of our history comes from American Experience, Idaho Experience, and, of course, Ken Burns. Same for the Earth's physical and natural systems, as well as the people of this world.
We need citizens in this country who don't rely on being spoon-fed others' opinions, but who have a basic knowledge of the world around us before we ask them to comprehend political statements that may or may not be true.
This is very, very true. Personally, I trust the Bulwark. Through trial and error over the years, I've found them to be the most reliable for aggregating news. So I subscribe to them and get a stable of very good writers that way.
I agree. I like the way The Bulwark helps me question my own assumptions as a life long Democrat. I like the energy that Sarah Longwell, Tim Miller, Sam Stein, and even JVL (whose doomsday outlook sometimes drives me crazy) bring to the dialogue. I am very willing to invest in a subscription to the Bulwark because they consistently provide quality.
Even if someone could swing the cost when would you find time to read all that ?!? I don't have that many sources (or pay that much) but I have trouble keeping up with it.
I don't think "read a bunch of different sources" is the solution that a lot of people think it is, especially when a lot of those sources refer to each other.
Thank you for writing this. I've said it before but I'll say it again. There are so many excellent writers on substack that I can't choose between them. Since I can't afford to subscribe to multiples of them, I don't subscribe to any.
Agreed. I tried, but my inbox was bursting with way too many feeds. I had to go through and unsubscribe. I do proactively go look for some of those writers who do offer a level of free access from time to time. But I have neither the time nor enough disposable income to follow all of them. It's just too bad, as there are so many that are doing good work and would like to support them.
The trouble with the Times and other mainstream entities is that, despite knowing that he is a murderer and a thief bent on the ruin of our commonwealth, they give him a clean slate on which to perpetrate new lies and atrocities every day. They may question the veracity vel non of his latest outburst, but they never make the point-- any trial lawyer would make it--that his past record of overwhelming mendacity gives the reader every reason to reject his most recent lie. The only way for papers like the Times to address this shortcoming would be to dedicate two front-page columns everyday to listing, say, 50 of Trump's most egregious lies and crimes over his career. My father used to say that democracy's most critical vulnerability was "Not the big lie, but the big forget." Sadly, our mainstream media enables this disfunction by failing to remind its readers of the sheer multiplicity of Trump's endless series of malefactions.
It’s like Wile E. Coyote faceplanting off a cliff and reappearing fresh as a daisy in the next scene. And they don’t give anyone else this treatment. All I’ve ever asked is for reporters and editors to treat Donald Trump like any other news source. And they won’t.
"Not the big lie, but the big forget" excellent thought from your dad. Somehow, we the people, better start reviewing & remembering the past 10 years of this horrific tRump history & all 'it' has done to break down our democracy.
The problem I have with the shift toward "creator journalists" is that many readers/viewers don't understand the difference between someone practicing journalism, and someone giving an opinion on news gathered by daily journalists. Sorry, but it's not journalism if you are not actually collecting the info--through interviews, research--and compiling the story. If you are using someone else's work to do that, you are a commentator. I think traditional media needs to do a better job of explaining how it works. Even still, I am heartbroken by the NY Times and the softening of language I see in stories about Trump. Things such as how Trump's relationship with MBS is, "blending governance with family business." Sounds so homey! Or that "deal-making and diplomacy are increasingly intertwined" for Trump. Instead of this breaking laws, violating ethics, creating instability, it "sets up a scenario." Their one story about Trump's obvious physical and mental failings compared with the literal pounding they gave Biden?! I'm happy I left the profession before it got this heartbreaking.
Yes, exactly this. There is a lot of commentary online--and it's great that at least some of it is based on original reporting (we could probably all name someone we follow who does original work), but it's easy for people to instead follow someone whose views already agree with their own. I'm concerned that younger people who didn't grow up with newspapers (look how many have disappeared!) and more solid reporting will think that commentary IS journalism.
And I also despair of what has happened at the NYT and Washington Post (among others) with their mealy-mouthed descriptions of blatant corruption masquerading as and administration. It truly is disheartening.
Absolutely the central challenge of the era. Everybody wants to blog opinions unfettered by the old restraints, but we have lost the funding mechanism to pay people to closely watch the local zoning or utility boards and keep them accountable. This is why we’ve turn Tip O’Neill on his head and find every election is now nationally partisan. Nobody knows anything except a few signals that candidates belong to one party or the other.
I still don’t have a solution either. I keep my local subscription despite rising prices and declining reporting. It’s now almost too light to throw onto my lawn.
No: I think the concepts themselves have no content and are unachievable. Furthermore, they are exellent weapons that can be used to dismantle any kind of journalism that seeks to explain events, which is what the authoritarian right has done. What is the balance between authoritarian impulses and democracy? What is the objetive point between a dog-whistle and repoerting/repeating the words without comment?
There is a place for reporting—fairly and accurately, without comment--and a place for comment and opinion. News v editorial. Different parts of the whole, well identified. There has long been a sacred division between them. A news story can give context and offer the opinions of others without becoming the reporter’s own opinion.
Even so-called "fact-based" reporting has biases: which story to cover and which not, how prominently to display the news story, what language to use, and so on.
When the NYT writes: "Trump's relationship with MBS is, blending governance with family business," this statement may be factually correct. However, the language used minimizes and softens the importance of this story.
True. I don't think humans can every rid themselves of bias. It's in the photos that are chosen, the way we paraphrase, etc. . . That's why we have editors. When they become compromised or unskilled, we lose the gatekeepers.
Very well said. An excellent point. We need a return to factual reporting. I too am heartbroken by my beloved NYT's current position. I understand how challenging the environment is, but I long for the days of when newspapers bravely stood up to politicians.
Lack of trust in US legacy media is the result of their total moral collapse. This example is a repost. I had to go to The Independent to find out about 28 yo USMC vet Jake Hieu Quoc Nguyen, who—on the same day that Charlie Kirk was killed—was shot to death in Texas, run over, then thrown to the side of the road like a piece of trash. Presumably, the murder of a USMC vet wasn’t legacy headline news because it raises questions: Where were the presidential tributes and promises of posthumous medals? Why didn’t JDV visit his devastated family? Where were the promises of financial support? Jake’s family had to resort to crowd funding to cover his final expenses. Why wasn’t the Texas national guard activated to restore law and order? Texas has more than 4K gun deaths per year. It’s more than 10% of the horrific national total. In this case, the three suspects being held for the murder of Jake Hieu Quoc Nguyen are children, aged 13, 14, and 15. Where did they get a gun? https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/marine-veteran-dead-uber-texas-b2823887.html. https://www.gofundme.com/f/jake-hieu-quoc-nguyen. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/marine-veteran-uber-shooting-texas-b2847366.html
I also have turned to The Guardian for news over the last year. Find it interesting that I’m going to a foreign paper/news to get information on US stories.
It has nearly become cliche that you can’t change someone’s point of view or behavior when their livelihood depends on not changing. This seems to be applicable to organizations as well, and particularly media platforms.
“Everything is born from change.” - Marcus Aurelius
I agree with this. In one breath I will say msm is dying, then on the other hand, I wonder why some from Substack don’t work together. Form a new kind of publication where one can view more than one author under the same banner.
For NYT senior ediitor: Do you think objectivity means giving equal time to facts and provable lies? Are you content to put misleadingly neutral heads on well-reported stories? Are you worried that outside journalists trained to believe the press is a watchdog of democracy too often find the NYT to be a cowering old dog afraid of being kicked by Trump?
Thank you for inviting us to imagine talking directly to a NYT senior newsroom editor! The commenters have already expressed most of what I would want to say. One point I haven't noticed in the comments is about headlines. They've never not been important, but headlines are often (I think) the only thing that a lot of people ever see, given the ways that people consume newspapers today (those of us who still do) And headlines (whether print or digital) do a lot of the work of sane-washing and normalizing the current administration's rampant fascism. I would like to see NYT (and all the other papers, as well) get more stringent about the cowardly, pro-administration editorials masquerading as headlines.
I subscribe to the NYT and WaPo, but typically just skim them or closely read only a particularly important article or opinion piece. I subscribe to TPM, Strength in Numbers, Lincoln Project, the Contrarian, Paul Krugman, and a couple of others. Between those and following a number of people on BlueSky (Greg Sargent, Heather Cox Richardson, etc.), I believe I get a much fuller and accurate picture of what is going on than I would just by reading the Times or Post. In fact, I would put it more strongly: if I completely relied on those papers (plus NPR) I would have a totally warped picture of the political landscape. I don’t think legacy media is salvageable; I believe its main value is as a supplement to, or at times basis for, more intelligent, comprehensive and honest independent analysis. I do not really learn much about the world by imbibing the perspective of wealthy corporations.
Questions for senior NYT editor:
Do you really believe the both-sides junk your paper offers or do you feel forced to present the news that way?
Do you know that many of your readers are fully aware of how weak and Republican-friendly your news coverage is?
On YouTube--another place where independent media has been taking root, there are AI-powered sites that, to the average consumer, look and sound just like, for example, Rachel Maddow, until you scroll down and read the disclaimer. And now I read from Popular Information that CNN and CNBC are being gamified by a betting company--so the scroll at the bottom of your screen will take odds.
Discernment is becoming ever more difficult, even to those of us who are discriminating consumers intent on learning the truth of what is going on in the world. It seems clear that the forces of disruption and corporate owners of media are intent on infiltrating their platforms with lies, hate speech and violence if it will make them money. Or bring them closer to the Grifter-in-Chief.
Thank you for doing your part to keep us informed, Margaret.
Here’s an example of a headline that misrepresents what’s really going on, from today’s New York Times. The headline is on the front page of the print edition. It reads as follows: “One Final Step for Citizenship Proves Elusive.” The article itself makes it clear where this mysterious elusiveness is coming from: the Trump administration’s hostility toward immigrants from certain countries. Why couldn’t the headline indicate the source of this cruelty? The headline in the online edition isn’t much better: “One Step from Citizenship, Some Find It Eluded Their Grasp.”
I grew up with the NYT’s being delivered to the house every day. These days I rely on The Guardian and other foreign news sources for prospective. The NYT’s is rumored to publish pro Russian articles. I don’t know if it is true; I just don’t waste my time on it.
I read Richardson and Krugman, but individual commenters like them can't be comprehensive and often have biases which we like when they coincide with ours. For broader coverage I try to glean information from AP, NYT, and Guardian. Opinion pieces are largely a trash heap with a few exceptions. NYT's continuing obsession with Biden is embarrasing and reads like a Pitchbot piece: Trump MRI shows he has no brain, which raises concern about Biden's cognitive health .
Great piece per usual Margaret. The question I’d ask the editors and that plagues me and want to know is WHY? Has profit beat out honest, trustworthy journalism? And are they willing to change? Do they care their readers are disillusioned, angry by these turns toward what exactly? I’ve lost all hope that they’ll listen to readers anymore as they seem to have given away their thirst for real news over money/gossip/ slanted news. All one need say is ‘Bari Weiss’ to get the picture.
I still read the Times, The Guardian, The Boston Globe AND Substack folks who give no quarter to BS. I’m 78 and have seen the glaring reporting changes since Trump came on the presidential scene. Heartbreaking and soul bending.
In order to be informed through substack, it would cost the average person close to $1,000 a year. That would give someone a well rounded, many sided, (to mix metaphors) view of news and opinion. And that would be a huge luxury for most people.
I think it is imperative that we try to come up with a way to inform without relying on a model of capitalism that has all but paywalled the average person out. Using Tik Tok, IG, Twitter, The Joe Rogan podcast (and all the other copy cat versions) is no way to create an informed populace. I don't have the answer. I am more than a little worried though for the under 35-40 year olds when it comes to "information".
I want journalists to make a living. But having to subscribe to numerous substacks is more then many of us can afford. Some sort of bundling would help a lot.
I wish I could "like" this 1000 times. Many people just don't have money to subscribe to anything because every dollar is being used for food, rent/mortgage/utilities and insurance -- particularly health insurance. The substack people who allow comments even to non-subscribers are doing a service which allows those people to engage and express the issues that are really important to them -- basically having enough money to survive on a daily basis.
And this is why I contribute a monthly donation to Idaho Public TV (PBS).
There are so many towns and communities in Idaho's rural and remote areas where the need to prioritize food, shelter, and health and safety is an absolute necessity (as you mentioned Sherry). PBS programming for kids and adults of all ages is free to view because of viewers' donations, especially now after Congress gutted appropriated funding with an ill-informed recission.
Most of what I've learned of our history comes from American Experience, Idaho Experience, and, of course, Ken Burns. Same for the Earth's physical and natural systems, as well as the people of this world.
We need citizens in this country who don't rely on being spoon-fed others' opinions, but who have a basic knowledge of the world around us before we ask them to comprehend political statements that may or may not be true.
This is very, very true. Personally, I trust the Bulwark. Through trial and error over the years, I've found them to be the most reliable for aggregating news. So I subscribe to them and get a stable of very good writers that way.
Agree. I am an OG Bulwark subscriber. I read many old school RW writers. The Bulwark crew is the least partisan. (imho)
I agree. I like the way The Bulwark helps me question my own assumptions as a life long Democrat. I like the energy that Sarah Longwell, Tim Miller, Sam Stein, and even JVL (whose doomsday outlook sometimes drives me crazy) bring to the dialogue. I am very willing to invest in a subscription to the Bulwark because they consistently provide quality.
Why Substack doesn't offer a Spotify-type subscription, I cannot understand.
Even if someone could swing the cost when would you find time to read all that ?!? I don't have that many sources (or pay that much) but I have trouble keeping up with it.
I don't think "read a bunch of different sources" is the solution that a lot of people think it is, especially when a lot of those sources refer to each other.
Thank you for writing this. I've said it before but I'll say it again. There are so many excellent writers on substack that I can't choose between them. Since I can't afford to subscribe to multiples of them, I don't subscribe to any.
Agreed. I tried, but my inbox was bursting with way too many feeds. I had to go through and unsubscribe. I do proactively go look for some of those writers who do offer a level of free access from time to time. But I have neither the time nor enough disposable income to follow all of them. It's just too bad, as there are so many that are doing good work and would like to support them.
The trouble with the Times and other mainstream entities is that, despite knowing that he is a murderer and a thief bent on the ruin of our commonwealth, they give him a clean slate on which to perpetrate new lies and atrocities every day. They may question the veracity vel non of his latest outburst, but they never make the point-- any trial lawyer would make it--that his past record of overwhelming mendacity gives the reader every reason to reject his most recent lie. The only way for papers like the Times to address this shortcoming would be to dedicate two front-page columns everyday to listing, say, 50 of Trump's most egregious lies and crimes over his career. My father used to say that democracy's most critical vulnerability was "Not the big lie, but the big forget." Sadly, our mainstream media enables this disfunction by failing to remind its readers of the sheer multiplicity of Trump's endless series of malefactions.
It’s like Wile E. Coyote faceplanting off a cliff and reappearing fresh as a daisy in the next scene. And they don’t give anyone else this treatment. All I’ve ever asked is for reporters and editors to treat Donald Trump like any other news source. And they won’t.
They are frightened and cowed. And with good reason, though I wish more of them had the courage to stand up.
"Not the big lie, but the big forget" excellent thought from your dad. Somehow, we the people, better start reviewing & remembering the past 10 years of this horrific tRump history & all 'it' has done to break down our democracy.
they give him a clean slate on which to perpetrate new lies and atrocities every day. “
Lynn, such an important point! And Rick Massimo’s analogy to Wile E. Coyote perfectly illustrates it.
The problem I have with the shift toward "creator journalists" is that many readers/viewers don't understand the difference between someone practicing journalism, and someone giving an opinion on news gathered by daily journalists. Sorry, but it's not journalism if you are not actually collecting the info--through interviews, research--and compiling the story. If you are using someone else's work to do that, you are a commentator. I think traditional media needs to do a better job of explaining how it works. Even still, I am heartbroken by the NY Times and the softening of language I see in stories about Trump. Things such as how Trump's relationship with MBS is, "blending governance with family business." Sounds so homey! Or that "deal-making and diplomacy are increasingly intertwined" for Trump. Instead of this breaking laws, violating ethics, creating instability, it "sets up a scenario." Their one story about Trump's obvious physical and mental failings compared with the literal pounding they gave Biden?! I'm happy I left the profession before it got this heartbreaking.
Yes, exactly this. There is a lot of commentary online--and it's great that at least some of it is based on original reporting (we could probably all name someone we follow who does original work), but it's easy for people to instead follow someone whose views already agree with their own. I'm concerned that younger people who didn't grow up with newspapers (look how many have disappeared!) and more solid reporting will think that commentary IS journalism.
And I also despair of what has happened at the NYT and Washington Post (among others) with their mealy-mouthed descriptions of blatant corruption masquerading as and administration. It truly is disheartening.
Completely agree.
So well said. 💔
Absolutely the central challenge of the era. Everybody wants to blog opinions unfettered by the old restraints, but we have lost the funding mechanism to pay people to closely watch the local zoning or utility boards and keep them accountable. This is why we’ve turn Tip O’Neill on his head and find every election is now nationally partisan. Nobody knows anything except a few signals that candidates belong to one party or the other.
I still don’t have a solution either. I keep my local subscription despite rising prices and declining reporting. It’s now almost too light to throw onto my lawn.
Naw: the journalistic paradigm is simply wrong to begin with… "Objectivity" and "balance" aren't real.
But they can be strived for, as best as humanly possible.
No: I think the concepts themselves have no content and are unachievable. Furthermore, they are exellent weapons that can be used to dismantle any kind of journalism that seeks to explain events, which is what the authoritarian right has done. What is the balance between authoritarian impulses and democracy? What is the objetive point between a dog-whistle and repoerting/repeating the words without comment?
There is a place for reporting—fairly and accurately, without comment--and a place for comment and opinion. News v editorial. Different parts of the whole, well identified. There has long been a sacred division between them. A news story can give context and offer the opinions of others without becoming the reporter’s own opinion.
Even so-called "fact-based" reporting has biases: which story to cover and which not, how prominently to display the news story, what language to use, and so on.
When the NYT writes: "Trump's relationship with MBS is, blending governance with family business," this statement may be factually correct. However, the language used minimizes and softens the importance of this story.
True. I don't think humans can every rid themselves of bias. It's in the photos that are chosen, the way we paraphrase, etc. . . That's why we have editors. When they become compromised or unskilled, we lose the gatekeepers.
Agreed. Reporting on the facts clearly and cogently without offering opinion was once the norm.
Very well said. An excellent point. We need a return to factual reporting. I too am heartbroken by my beloved NYT's current position. I understand how challenging the environment is, but I long for the days of when newspapers bravely stood up to politicians.
Lack of trust in US legacy media is the result of their total moral collapse. This example is a repost. I had to go to The Independent to find out about 28 yo USMC vet Jake Hieu Quoc Nguyen, who—on the same day that Charlie Kirk was killed—was shot to death in Texas, run over, then thrown to the side of the road like a piece of trash. Presumably, the murder of a USMC vet wasn’t legacy headline news because it raises questions: Where were the presidential tributes and promises of posthumous medals? Why didn’t JDV visit his devastated family? Where were the promises of financial support? Jake’s family had to resort to crowd funding to cover his final expenses. Why wasn’t the Texas national guard activated to restore law and order? Texas has more than 4K gun deaths per year. It’s more than 10% of the horrific national total. In this case, the three suspects being held for the murder of Jake Hieu Quoc Nguyen are children, aged 13, 14, and 15. Where did they get a gun? https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/marine-veteran-dead-uber-texas-b2823887.html. https://www.gofundme.com/f/jake-hieu-quoc-nguyen. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/marine-veteran-uber-shooting-texas-b2847366.html
I also have turned to The Guardian for news over the last year. Find it interesting that I’m going to a foreign paper/news to get information on US stories.
I’m glad you like the Guardian. They now have a US newsroom of more than 100 journalists.
Canada’s CBC can also be informative….
Will check that out-thanks!
I like the Economist, a bit more balanced
It has nearly become cliche that you can’t change someone’s point of view or behavior when their livelihood depends on not changing. This seems to be applicable to organizations as well, and particularly media platforms.
“Everything is born from change.” - Marcus Aurelius
How is one supposed to afford all the Substacks one must follow to stay informed?
I agree with this. In one breath I will say msm is dying, then on the other hand, I wonder why some from Substack don’t work together. Form a new kind of publication where one can view more than one author under the same banner.
💯 Perhaps substack could organize and offer subscriptions at a bulk rate. Otherwise, they have to promote each other. Too cozy for me.
We can’t. At least I can’t. As renewals come around, I’m re-evaluating.
For NYT senior ediitor: Do you think objectivity means giving equal time to facts and provable lies? Are you content to put misleadingly neutral heads on well-reported stories? Are you worried that outside journalists trained to believe the press is a watchdog of democracy too often find the NYT to be a cowering old dog afraid of being kicked by Trump?
Thank you!
Thank you for inviting us to imagine talking directly to a NYT senior newsroom editor! The commenters have already expressed most of what I would want to say. One point I haven't noticed in the comments is about headlines. They've never not been important, but headlines are often (I think) the only thing that a lot of people ever see, given the ways that people consume newspapers today (those of us who still do) And headlines (whether print or digital) do a lot of the work of sane-washing and normalizing the current administration's rampant fascism. I would like to see NYT (and all the other papers, as well) get more stringent about the cowardly, pro-administration editorials masquerading as headlines.
I subscribe to the NYT and WaPo, but typically just skim them or closely read only a particularly important article or opinion piece. I subscribe to TPM, Strength in Numbers, Lincoln Project, the Contrarian, Paul Krugman, and a couple of others. Between those and following a number of people on BlueSky (Greg Sargent, Heather Cox Richardson, etc.), I believe I get a much fuller and accurate picture of what is going on than I would just by reading the Times or Post. In fact, I would put it more strongly: if I completely relied on those papers (plus NPR) I would have a totally warped picture of the political landscape. I don’t think legacy media is salvageable; I believe its main value is as a supplement to, or at times basis for, more intelligent, comprehensive and honest independent analysis. I do not really learn much about the world by imbibing the perspective of wealthy corporations.
Questions for senior NYT editor:
Do you really believe the both-sides junk your paper offers or do you feel forced to present the news that way?
Do you know that many of your readers are fully aware of how weak and Republican-friendly your news coverage is?
Do you follow NYTimesPitchbot?
Please tell the Times to stop sanewashing Trump and his cabinet, and the MAGA worldview.
There is no more trust. As a substack writer who has become increasingly concerned about this platform, I was disturbed to read this Media and Democracy Post, "Substack has a Nazi problem." https://mediaanddemocracyproject.substack.com/p/substack-has-a-nazi-problem-and-a
On YouTube--another place where independent media has been taking root, there are AI-powered sites that, to the average consumer, look and sound just like, for example, Rachel Maddow, until you scroll down and read the disclaimer. And now I read from Popular Information that CNN and CNBC are being gamified by a betting company--so the scroll at the bottom of your screen will take odds.
Discernment is becoming ever more difficult, even to those of us who are discriminating consumers intent on learning the truth of what is going on in the world. It seems clear that the forces of disruption and corporate owners of media are intent on infiltrating their platforms with lies, hate speech and violence if it will make them money. Or bring them closer to the Grifter-in-Chief.
Thank you for doing your part to keep us informed, Margaret.
What Nazi problem? Where? I've never seen anyone close to being a Nazi on Substack
Here’s an example of a headline that misrepresents what’s really going on, from today’s New York Times. The headline is on the front page of the print edition. It reads as follows: “One Final Step for Citizenship Proves Elusive.” The article itself makes it clear where this mysterious elusiveness is coming from: the Trump administration’s hostility toward immigrants from certain countries. Why couldn’t the headline indicate the source of this cruelty? The headline in the online edition isn’t much better: “One Step from Citizenship, Some Find It Eluded Their Grasp.”
I grew up with the NYT’s being delivered to the house every day. These days I rely on The Guardian and other foreign news sources for prospective. The NYT’s is rumored to publish pro Russian articles. I don’t know if it is true; I just don’t waste my time on it.
I read Richardson and Krugman, but individual commenters like them can't be comprehensive and often have biases which we like when they coincide with ours. For broader coverage I try to glean information from AP, NYT, and Guardian. Opinion pieces are largely a trash heap with a few exceptions. NYT's continuing obsession with Biden is embarrasing and reads like a Pitchbot piece: Trump MRI shows he has no brain, which raises concern about Biden's cognitive health .
Great piece per usual Margaret. The question I’d ask the editors and that plagues me and want to know is WHY? Has profit beat out honest, trustworthy journalism? And are they willing to change? Do they care their readers are disillusioned, angry by these turns toward what exactly? I’ve lost all hope that they’ll listen to readers anymore as they seem to have given away their thirst for real news over money/gossip/ slanted news. All one need say is ‘Bari Weiss’ to get the picture.
I still read the Times, The Guardian, The Boston Globe AND Substack folks who give no quarter to BS. I’m 78 and have seen the glaring reporting changes since Trump came on the presidential scene. Heartbreaking and soul bending.
Thanks.