I don’t think there’s a single point here with which I agree other than if Rosen wants a literal daily index, that’s silly and in no way part of a solution. That Barkan’s example of the media’s competent response is all opinion pieces, not a single hard news story.
And Barkan’s apparent basis that — magically? — the masses are being provided with what they need to know isn’t backed by, you know, facts.
As a news consumer and one who follows a chunk of media criticism, it’s clear the mainstream has been failing. In no particular order, just a few examples:
Trump was objectively unfit for office including that he would be incapable of growing into the responsibilities thereof. Unreported.
That culminated in him literally being complicit in at least a few hundred thousand avoidable Covid deaths but his concern that acknowledging that a global pandemic and responding thereto would make him look bad and therefore feel bad. Reported outside the mainstream.
The failure or refusal to report anything about the reason behind ending the military action in Afghanistan and calling what was actually a pretty good job of withdrawing a disaster — could have been a lot worse, couldn’t have been much better, not that you’d know from mainstream reporting. (Some factoids: part of the problem for the Afghan armed forces on our withdrawal was that we outsourced to private contractors who, let’s say, wouldn’t share necessary skills, knowledge and equipment with the Afghans. That liberal, modern state that the Blob claims is now lost: That’s what Afghanistan had when Carter and Brzezinski formed the mujahideen to overthrow same. And the only kind of state we’ve ever been interested in setting up when “liberating” is an extractive one which is to say one that by definition won’t be winning hearts and minds.
At the end of the day, the mainstream’s declining audience is due to not quite lack of credibility, a lack in trust that one’s being informed. And they’re correct to think so. You have the examples above of deliberate misinformation. (The alternative to deliberate is that editors and reporters just don’t know better which, I mean, seriously?)
We’ve had approximately forty years of an extractive economy with an upward transfer of wealth which is to say mass impoverishment. And no, easy credit is not a proper substitute for a fair wage. Instead of getting honest reporting on the economy, we get a scenario of labor and workers getting uppity. These workers include those who weren’t getting a living wage but, we’re told, are creating serious inflationary problems with all their raises which are actually minimal in the greater scheme as well as healthcare workers quitting over burnout compounded by abusive employment conditions.
Another failure is in the area of voting rights. No prominence giving to the vote rigging laws being passed nor even pointing out that in a putative democracy, maybe voting should be made as easy as possible, not challenging.
The potential audience knows they’re not being informed but understandably has no idea what they’re missing let alone why. A vacuum is being created as a result of the mainstream’s failures in reporting and that vacuum’s being filled by even worse misinformation and disinformation. The mainstream is causing real societal harm.
And, again, that can’t be fixed by pundits opining but with fact-based reporting of a kind the mainstream refuses to do.
Right on. I've appreciated some of Rosen's insights as well, but he's one of those whom I only know now because the media environment amplified Trump alarmists like him. The fact that the Times doesn't have a single pro-Trump op-ed writer speaks to the amount of "balance" the press seeks. What other President had a running tally of lies or misleading statements published by the Washington Post? What other had a regular "50 most insane things Trump said at his last public appearance" column (CNN)? Would Rosen say that the fact that the Washington Post *did* have regular pro-Trump columnists is an example of the bad "balance"? Were Gary Abernathy's columns trying to explain the point of view of the "average" Trump voter a series of *threats* to democracy or an opportunity for people to learn something?
I've long come to the conclusion that anyone in politics or the media serious about undermining Trump needs to take more of an aikido or judo approach (using opponent's energy against them or other indirect means) than the frenzied attacks that clearly don't work. Attention to patterns of action over words, and renewed commitment to the kind of objectivity you emphasize would certainly be part of such an approach. Perhaps it's too late to gain back credibility regarding Trump with anyone not already repulsed by him, however.
I very much agree. I'm a liberal, and would never vote for Trump, but I'm appalled by all the examples you cite of MSM "fact checking" that is really designed to launder woke policy priorities that are deeply unpopular across the political spectrum. That in itself is profoundly undemocratic. There are so many examples, but the "mostly peaceful protest" reporter in front of a raging firestorm from last summer was a perfect encapsulation of why the reputations of the legacy publications are in the toilet right now, and not just with conservatives.
They have spent the last ten years deleting their comments sections and bullying their colleagues on Slack and Twitter and thinking that is enough to make them aribiters of all Truth. But they finally pushed it too far, and there is finally stuff like Substack that they can't control, and now they are paying the price.
I don’t think there’s a single point here with which I agree other than if Rosen wants a literal daily index, that’s silly and in no way part of a solution. That Barkan’s example of the media’s competent response is all opinion pieces, not a single hard news story.
And Barkan’s apparent basis that — magically? — the masses are being provided with what they need to know isn’t backed by, you know, facts.
As a news consumer and one who follows a chunk of media criticism, it’s clear the mainstream has been failing. In no particular order, just a few examples:
Trump was objectively unfit for office including that he would be incapable of growing into the responsibilities thereof. Unreported.
That culminated in him literally being complicit in at least a few hundred thousand avoidable Covid deaths but his concern that acknowledging that a global pandemic and responding thereto would make him look bad and therefore feel bad. Reported outside the mainstream.
The failure or refusal to report anything about the reason behind ending the military action in Afghanistan and calling what was actually a pretty good job of withdrawing a disaster — could have been a lot worse, couldn’t have been much better, not that you’d know from mainstream reporting. (Some factoids: part of the problem for the Afghan armed forces on our withdrawal was that we outsourced to private contractors who, let’s say, wouldn’t share necessary skills, knowledge and equipment with the Afghans. That liberal, modern state that the Blob claims is now lost: That’s what Afghanistan had when Carter and Brzezinski formed the mujahideen to overthrow same. And the only kind of state we’ve ever been interested in setting up when “liberating” is an extractive one which is to say one that by definition won’t be winning hearts and minds.
At the end of the day, the mainstream’s declining audience is due to not quite lack of credibility, a lack in trust that one’s being informed. And they’re correct to think so. You have the examples above of deliberate misinformation. (The alternative to deliberate is that editors and reporters just don’t know better which, I mean, seriously?)
We’ve had approximately forty years of an extractive economy with an upward transfer of wealth which is to say mass impoverishment. And no, easy credit is not a proper substitute for a fair wage. Instead of getting honest reporting on the economy, we get a scenario of labor and workers getting uppity. These workers include those who weren’t getting a living wage but, we’re told, are creating serious inflationary problems with all their raises which are actually minimal in the greater scheme as well as healthcare workers quitting over burnout compounded by abusive employment conditions.
Another failure is in the area of voting rights. No prominence giving to the vote rigging laws being passed nor even pointing out that in a putative democracy, maybe voting should be made as easy as possible, not challenging.
The potential audience knows they’re not being informed but understandably has no idea what they’re missing let alone why. A vacuum is being created as a result of the mainstream’s failures in reporting and that vacuum’s being filled by even worse misinformation and disinformation. The mainstream is causing real societal harm.
And, again, that can’t be fixed by pundits opining but with fact-based reporting of a kind the mainstream refuses to do.
Right on. I've appreciated some of Rosen's insights as well, but he's one of those whom I only know now because the media environment amplified Trump alarmists like him. The fact that the Times doesn't have a single pro-Trump op-ed writer speaks to the amount of "balance" the press seeks. What other President had a running tally of lies or misleading statements published by the Washington Post? What other had a regular "50 most insane things Trump said at his last public appearance" column (CNN)? Would Rosen say that the fact that the Washington Post *did* have regular pro-Trump columnists is an example of the bad "balance"? Were Gary Abernathy's columns trying to explain the point of view of the "average" Trump voter a series of *threats* to democracy or an opportunity for people to learn something?
I've long come to the conclusion that anyone in politics or the media serious about undermining Trump needs to take more of an aikido or judo approach (using opponent's energy against them or other indirect means) than the frenzied attacks that clearly don't work. Attention to patterns of action over words, and renewed commitment to the kind of objectivity you emphasize would certainly be part of such an approach. Perhaps it's too late to gain back credibility regarding Trump with anyone not already repulsed by him, however.
An absolute masterpiece. Well done sir!
I very much agree. I'm a liberal, and would never vote for Trump, but I'm appalled by all the examples you cite of MSM "fact checking" that is really designed to launder woke policy priorities that are deeply unpopular across the political spectrum. That in itself is profoundly undemocratic. There are so many examples, but the "mostly peaceful protest" reporter in front of a raging firestorm from last summer was a perfect encapsulation of why the reputations of the legacy publications are in the toilet right now, and not just with conservatives.
They have spent the last ten years deleting their comments sections and bullying their colleagues on Slack and Twitter and thinking that is enough to make them aribiters of all Truth. But they finally pushed it too far, and there is finally stuff like Substack that they can't control, and now they are paying the price.