This whole article led me to believe that a lot of people who work in big-corp news orgs don’t really understand what the rest of our lives are like in many ways. Be it the Times, Post, Fox News, or CNN, they think they are the centers of the universe. They think they themselves are critically important, not people being able to access accurate news.
Over the last century or so, our smaller local media orgs have been eaten up by massive corporations. I don’t think that’s been particularly good for us, nor do I think people who’ve learned to thrive in these sorts of organizations really see that what’s happening now is just a more overt version of what’s happened over the last century or so.
As for solutions to all this? I think these folks, the ones who really care, need to start leaving and forming their own independent, smaller news orgs. And if it’s not affordable for them to do so in cities like LA or NYC (hint: those places aren’t affordable for anyone), they need to do this in other parts of the country.
(Really, this applies to everyone in every industry: if you don’t like what big corporations and evermore shareholder-driven economies are doing, go work for smaller companies that don’t have shareholders.)
One thread is how Al Neuharth (founder of USA Today) started the enshittification doom loop. The other is about one (now independent) investigative journalist's efforts to keep local journalism alive.
The anchor desk "journalism" Beltway media corporate slaves (who don't realize they are slaves) exist on the delusion that their point of view is every point of view. They don't get out into the real world™ much. They're there to collect a paycheck, repeat the soundbites and read the teleprompter, and not offend their corporate/political masters lest they lose access and/or patronage. Ask Chris Hedges, the late Phil Donahue, or anyone else fired for daring to question the "patriotic" march to a largely pointless war.
In many ways, beltway media is the most informed, at least with regards to the government picture of things — after all, the job is talking (informally and formally) to key stakeholders (and their underlings).
That there are forces that try to shape this narrative, and consequences for those who fight it without their own power base, should be so self-evident it’s not even worth mentioning.
The alternative to “anchor desk journalism beltway media” isn’t less controlled media, but even more obfuscated control.
For all the faults of the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc., at least they have their own power base.
Decentralized smaller media holding powerful entities to account hasn’t shown us that it works better — just that individuals can be bought much more cheaply (and invisibly) than newsrooms.
Which in essence is the post’s entire point: media which survives genAi needs to differentiate its product. It can’t do that on (a) cost of production or (b) diversity of content. The only remaining options are (c) trust, powered by (d) the type of reporting it takes corporate funding and long-term journalist relationships and investigations to generate.
I don't read the opinion section because you can get opinions anywhere and there are better blogs on Substack. The news reporting in the Washington Post seems as good as ever, as far as I can tell.
Demanding the conflation of opinion with expert instruction is one reason why Media is in terminal decline.
A large part of credibility in expertise is the ability to naturally lead. People tend to follow who reads as credible. If someone doesn't read as such, it isn't the fault their missing audience.
If they are credible and yet lack the ability to communicate that, I'd suggest that's both rare in-practice but would be a dire skill issue. Examining what is wrong with them and why better people aren't employed would be the logical next step.
Pretending that facts cannot be manipulated is fundamental to propaganda, regardless of color. A big discussion of facts, experts and opinions is a way to escape addressing the ubiquitous propaganda problem.
Journalists should have realised a long time ago that their opinions are a commodity, and they will destroy their entire industry by focusing on opinions and not on on-the-ground reporting. But they doubled down, and decided to be as opinionated as possible. Of course this was tempting, because emotional propaganda gets more clicks.
But I think there would still be a market for a 1990s BBC style on the ground, completely opinion free reporting, and someone could fill this niche because a lot of people WOULD actually pay for this. But it would take a big investment and it's a big risk.
If no-one cared about opinions you would be fine with having just one newspaper that writes down the bare facts. The whole appeal of people paying for media is because they value the opinions on top of the facts that should ideally come from relevant experience/knowledge.
News publishers saw that they needed to differentiate to retain market share. If theyre just reporting news why wouldn't everyone just switch to the AP or reuters?
> But I think there would still be a market for a 1990s BBC style on the ground, completely opinion free reporting, and someone could fill this niche because a lot of people WOULD actually pay for this. But it would take a big investment and it's a big risk.
Look at the article currently promoted at the top of Post opinion page: "Trump is off to a good start with an AI action plan" https://archive.is/ERCme
Regardless of what you think of the quality of that opinion, it took very little effort to make.
Compare the sources they used to the work it would take go out on the ground and do novel research:
- Their own news article about it (itself based on press releases and an off-the-record comment that obviously would have come from someone in the White House press office assigned to promote the press release)
- Their own past opinion pieces
- Reuters.com
- WhiteHouse.gov
- Online govt statistics
- CNN.com
- NeurIPS' blog
- Columbia Business School blog
- Matthew Yglesias' blog
- Greg Lukanioff's blog
I could have found those sources based on vague memories of tweets I've seen by following journalists on Bluesky and a few hours of googling. I suspect they did the same, except they used X instead.
Opinions are like assholes, except that opinion sections of major newspapers don't include toilet paper unless you count their own sandpaper-like periodical.
The second Opinion unit, for outside submissions, is the Amazon reseller concept applied to news. It's why you can't buy anything important on Amazon any more.
There are very few American newspapers left that have actual reporters in the field. The New York Times and the Washington Post are almost the only ones left.
The result is that most stories begin from some press release. Look at the Washington Post right now.
- "Trump, European Union reach trade deal with 15% tariffs" - from a press release.
- "Israel to let more aid trucks into Gaza, under pressure over hunger crisis
Israel said..." - press release
- "Denied federal flood relief, a Maryland town is left on its own" - actual reporter coverage of regional news.
- "Trump’s imaginary numbers, from $1.99 gas to 1,500 percent price cuts" - desk work, rehash of existing info.
For most other newspapers, it's even worse. Few if any boots on the ground.
"News is what someone doesn't want published. All else is publicity"
I know some Dutch newspapers that didn't have any. It was mostly the free local papers that did.
Edit: these papers are still around, I just don't know if they still don't have classifieds because I don't read any papers anymore. The whole idea of getting a dead tree delivered is kinda old fashioned to me.
One difference between actual journalists and people who just post their opinions on the Internet is that journalists will make phone calls. Even when they don’t talk to people in person, that’s still valuable.
More importantly, true journalists follow the "no surprises" rule and contact the subject to allow them to hear what will be reported, respond to questions, and provide additional information or context that could inform the story.
A lot of people claim to be journalists and yet lack a fundamental understanding of journalistic principles and best practices.
Bari Weiss and Paul Krugman wouldn't agree on almost anything but they agree it's a better life to be writing for Substack than for the NYT.
I enjoy reading Krugman so much now because he seems to be having so much fun now that he doesn't have the weight of the New York Times editors on him.
Weird that it doesn’t mention Trump. He and Bezos were at odds until Bezos gave him $1M for the inauguration and decided to neuter the Post’s opinion section. Then all threats of antitrust against Amazon magically went away. Bezos probably had to trash the Post to save Amazon. The loss is a drop in the bucket to him.
Rich people have been paying off politicians forever, Trump isn’t the first, and he won’t be the last. Back the winner until the winner is the loser, then back the new winner, repeat. AKA the king is dead long live the king!
Everything Bezos, Jassy and Amazon have been doing in the last ~5 years has been Day 2.Despite this, I think the question to ask is what was the real motivation for Jeff being the Post and what does success look like in that context.
If the goal was to have more control over the narrative in this country and influence news reporting and public opinion in support of Jeff's ambitions, I think there's an argument to be made that he's accomplishing that as we speak.
> Despite this, I think the question to ask is what was the real motivation for Jeff being the Post and what does success look like in that context.
My hunch is it was due to Amazon's attempt to win a majority of the work in the JEDI tender.
WashPo was bought during the height of the JEDI tender, along with Bezos's shift in domicile to Washington DC, Amazon HQ2, and Amazon's opening of the Crystal City and expansion of the Reston city campus all happened during that tender.
The "why" is pretty obvious. Bezos is intimidated by Trump. Under Trump 1 he changed the paper's masthead to "Democracy Dies in Darkness", like out of Batman.
If you look at Russia, you see being an oligarch is particularly dangerous in an authoritarian society. You fall out of a window. You can't get permits for anything, your contracts get canceled. Some average rando can be part of the #resistance and not face consequences because nobody cares but if you are that visible you're vulnerable.
Readit News
Over the last century or so, our smaller local media orgs have been eaten up by massive corporations. I don’t think that’s been particularly good for us, nor do I think people who’ve learned to thrive in these sorts of organizations really see that what’s happening now is just a more overt version of what’s happened over the last century or so.
As for solutions to all this? I think these folks, the ones who really care, need to start leaving and forming their own independent, smaller news orgs. And if it’s not affordable for them to do so in cities like LA or NYC (hint: those places aren’t affordable for anyone), they need to do this in other parts of the country.
(Really, this applies to everyone in every industry: if you don’t like what big corporations and evermore shareholder-driven economies are doing, go work for smaller companies that don’t have shareholders.)
Yes and: by Wall St too.
The documentary Fit to Print [2016] is one telling of this history.
https://tubitv.com/movies/682467/fit-to-printhttps://fawesome.tv/movies/10568236/fit-to-print
One thread is how Al Neuharth (founder of USA Today) started the enshittification doom loop. The other is about one (now independent) investigative journalist's efforts to keep local journalism alive.
In many ways, beltway media is the most informed, at least with regards to the government picture of things — after all, the job is talking (informally and formally) to key stakeholders (and their underlings).
That there are forces that try to shape this narrative, and consequences for those who fight it without their own power base, should be so self-evident it’s not even worth mentioning.
The alternative to “anchor desk journalism beltway media” isn’t less controlled media, but even more obfuscated control.
For all the faults of the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc., at least they have their own power base.
Decentralized smaller media holding powerful entities to account hasn’t shown us that it works better — just that individuals can be bought much more cheaply (and invisibly) than newsrooms.
Which in essence is the post’s entire point: media which survives genAi needs to differentiate its product. It can’t do that on (a) cost of production or (b) diversity of content. The only remaining options are (c) trust, powered by (d) the type of reporting it takes corporate funding and long-term journalist relationships and investigations to generate.
- Tom Nichols, The Death of Expertise
A large part of credibility in expertise is the ability to naturally lead. People tend to follow who reads as credible. If someone doesn't read as such, it isn't the fault their missing audience.
If they are credible and yet lack the ability to communicate that, I'd suggest that's both rare in-practice but would be a dire skill issue. Examining what is wrong with them and why better people aren't employed would be the logical next step.
To your context, it simply means you havent seen bias in the facts, but dont evaluate the completeness thereof.
But I think there would still be a market for a 1990s BBC style on the ground, completely opinion free reporting, and someone could fill this niche because a lot of people WOULD actually pay for this. But it would take a big investment and it's a big risk.
> But I think there would still be a market for a 1990s BBC style on the ground, completely opinion free reporting, and someone could fill this niche because a lot of people WOULD actually pay for this. But it would take a big investment and it's a big risk.
AP and reuters are still doing this today
(I have no idea how to describe, categorize most (opinion) columnists. Vishy? Quislings? Judas goats? Gossip columnists?)
Look at the article currently promoted at the top of Post opinion page: "Trump is off to a good start with an AI action plan" https://archive.is/ERCme
Regardless of what you think of the quality of that opinion, it took very little effort to make.
Compare the sources they used to the work it would take go out on the ground and do novel research:
- Their own news article about it (itself based on press releases and an off-the-record comment that obviously would have come from someone in the White House press office assigned to promote the press release)
- Their own past opinion pieces
- Reuters.com
- WhiteHouse.gov
- Online govt statistics
- CNN.com
- NeurIPS' blog
- Columbia Business School blog
- Matthew Yglesias' blog
- Greg Lukanioff's blog
I could have found those sources based on vague memories of tweets I've seen by following journalists on Bluesky and a few hours of googling. I suspect they did the same, except they used X instead.
There are very few American newspapers left that have actual reporters in the field. The New York Times and the Washington Post are almost the only ones left. The result is that most stories begin from some press release. Look at the Washington Post right now.
- "Trump, European Union reach trade deal with 15% tariffs" - from a press release.
- "Israel to let more aid trucks into Gaza, under pressure over hunger crisis Israel said..." - press release
- "Denied federal flood relief, a Maryland town is left on its own" - actual reporter coverage of regional news.
- "Trump’s imaginary numbers, from $1.99 gas to 1,500 percent price cuts" - desk work, rehash of existing info.
For most other newspapers, it's even worse. Few if any boots on the ground.
"News is what someone doesn't want published. All else is publicity"
It is not the fourth branch of government anymore.
Somebody should do that for social media.
I know some Dutch newspapers that didn't have any. It was mostly the free local papers that did.
Edit: these papers are still around, I just don't know if they still don't have classifieds because I don't read any papers anymore. The whole idea of getting a dead tree delivered is kinda old fashioned to me.
A lot of people claim to be journalists and yet lack a fundamental understanding of journalistic principles and best practices.
I enjoy reading Krugman so much now because he seems to be having so much fun now that he doesn't have the weight of the New York Times editors on him.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-washington-post-is-dying-je...
Funny how you grow to become the richest or second-richest man in the world, only to kiss ass to a bully.
If the goal was to have more control over the narrative in this country and influence news reporting and public opinion in support of Jeff's ambitions, I think there's an argument to be made that he's accomplishing that as we speak.
My hunch is it was due to Amazon's attempt to win a majority of the work in the JEDI tender.
WashPo was bought during the height of the JEDI tender, along with Bezos's shift in domicile to Washington DC, Amazon HQ2, and Amazon's opening of the Crystal City and expansion of the Reston city campus all happened during that tender.
If you look at Russia, you see being an oligarch is particularly dangerous in an authoritarian society. You fall out of a window. You can't get permits for anything, your contracts get canceled. Some average rando can be part of the #resistance and not face consequences because nobody cares but if you are that visible you're vulnerable.
Bezos doesn't want all the space-related contracts to go to Elon and SpaceX.
Deleted Comment