I can't understand why reputable news organizations like NPR and The New York Times think that adding the phrase 'without evidence' after a batshit-crazy, pseudo-scientific assertion by Trump or RFK, Jr is sufficient. How about saying "despite substantial, well-documented research to the contrary"? Would that really be a breach of journalistic ethics?
If I may add to the list which is incorporated under telling the truth and holding power to account-attribute good/bad policy to where it belongs. SO OFTEN there are stories of infrastructure investment, abortion bans, childcare subsidies...and the PRESS never says who voted for it or made it happened or tried to block it. NPR was reporting on Sen Richard Shelby showing up to a ribbon cutting for a federal investment he VOTED AGAINST and NPR just let that go unsaid-people assume these pols that keep our state shitty are doing the good things that DEMS are giving us and not actively trying to block them.
Not for profit-could a consortium of existing outlets/substackers doing great not for profit reporting be created. My inbox is overflowing with good free journalism but some of it is repetitive and covering the same issues. Mark Elias for election/voting rights info, The intercept/The lever/ Drop site for Gaza and the middle east, Judd Legume for holding power to account and corruption, Abortion Everyday (Jessica Valenti) for abortion news, Erin Reed for trans rights news/LGBTQ rights, Wonkette/Noah Berlasky/ for politics, Don Moynihan for government and Matt Stoller for Monopoly/Anti Trust, Heated (Emily Atkin) for Environment...Its out there and they are doing EVERYTHING you mention (relying on experts not pols for answers) its just balkanized and less powerful as a result. MoJo, Jacobin and the Guardian has excellent reporters as well
Excellent solution for an alternative, popular, fact based news source. We cannot afford to let faux "news" and major media outlets destroy all trust in journalism.
While I agree that journalists should write to explain everything they write about, including basic civics, we need to teach concepts essential to being a citizen in schools. If we ever get around to recovering our democracy, we need to enunciate as fundamental, protected rights education and access to a free press. The notion of people voting for exactly what they do *not* want simply because press coverage is so bad should be vomitous in a republic of free people.
I don't think we can rely on philanthropy to fund a free press. We need vouchers so that everyone can buy equal access to journalism... and we need to have standards for what constitutes journalism so that the only organizations that qualify for vouchers have to base their journalism on actual facts as judged by actual experts. The idea that outrageous lies like the Haitians eating pets thing or the Dominion Voting can be broadcast as possibly true should also be vomitous to free people.
Yes, we should be teaching civics in schools, but apparently we're not doing a very good job of it. It may be necessary to resort to bite-sized civics lessons to counteract the effect of little or no instruction on the subject, so people's eyes don't glaze over before the lesson is over.
As far as vouchers go, public library systems are supposed to be providing their cardholders with access to quality journalism, but I suspect most people don't even think of this option. Nowadays, you don't even have to visit a library to get access to newspapers & magazines.
Well, the Guardian comes close, under the aegis of a Trust, and support from a separate Foundation arm. Bezos could easily duplicate such a structure at the WaPo, that is IF he's really, really interested in quality journalism that speaks truth to power. However, his overtures to His Orange Holiness gainsays that hope, tant pis, and the fact the Bezos himself in fact epitomizes oligarchic power.
A national online publication that focused relentlessly on issues and not politics per se is a great idea. But which oligarch or foundation will put up the half billion dollars a year it would take to fund it? (I'm not pulling that number out of a hat; that's about what the NYTimes spend on editorial and ancillary costs like defense lawyers).
Well, as Robt McChesney once said, "Like other public goods, if society wants it, it will require public policy and public spending. There is no other way." His successor, Victor Pickard, in Democracy Without Journalism proposed that the US spend $30 billion per year on public media.
All good ideas, Dan. I’ve never been as disappointed in our legacy news organizations as I was after Trump walked all over them. But it’s a bit of a cop-out to conflate this immense coverage failure with the business model behind it. Outside of the very public and outrageous decisions by the owners of WaPo and the LATimes to pull their Harris endorsements, it’s still a fairly rare occurrence for owners of legacy papers to direct day to day coverage decisions and priorities. The fault here lies not with profiteers but with our fellow journalists themselves, who insisted on normalizing a candidate and a party that espoused hate, lies and misinformation. Simply pulling down the paywalls won’t mean a thing. Reform needs to come first from inside our newsrooms before we kick the owners out the door.
I can't understand why reputable news organizations like NPR and The New York Times think that adding the phrase 'without evidence' after a batshit-crazy, pseudo-scientific assertion by Trump or RFK, Jr is sufficient. How about saying "despite substantial, well-documented research to the contrary"? Would that really be a breach of journalistic ethics?
If I may add to the list which is incorporated under telling the truth and holding power to account-attribute good/bad policy to where it belongs. SO OFTEN there are stories of infrastructure investment, abortion bans, childcare subsidies...and the PRESS never says who voted for it or made it happened or tried to block it. NPR was reporting on Sen Richard Shelby showing up to a ribbon cutting for a federal investment he VOTED AGAINST and NPR just let that go unsaid-people assume these pols that keep our state shitty are doing the good things that DEMS are giving us and not actively trying to block them.
Not for profit-could a consortium of existing outlets/substackers doing great not for profit reporting be created. My inbox is overflowing with good free journalism but some of it is repetitive and covering the same issues. Mark Elias for election/voting rights info, The intercept/The lever/ Drop site for Gaza and the middle east, Judd Legume for holding power to account and corruption, Abortion Everyday (Jessica Valenti) for abortion news, Erin Reed for trans rights news/LGBTQ rights, Wonkette/Noah Berlasky/ for politics, Don Moynihan for government and Matt Stoller for Monopoly/Anti Trust, Heated (Emily Atkin) for Environment...Its out there and they are doing EVERYTHING you mention (relying on experts not pols for answers) its just balkanized and less powerful as a result. MoJo, Jacobin and the Guardian has excellent reporters as well
Excellent solution for an alternative, popular, fact based news source. We cannot afford to let faux "news" and major media outlets destroy all trust in journalism.
Two points:
While I agree that journalists should write to explain everything they write about, including basic civics, we need to teach concepts essential to being a citizen in schools. If we ever get around to recovering our democracy, we need to enunciate as fundamental, protected rights education and access to a free press. The notion of people voting for exactly what they do *not* want simply because press coverage is so bad should be vomitous in a republic of free people.
I don't think we can rely on philanthropy to fund a free press. We need vouchers so that everyone can buy equal access to journalism... and we need to have standards for what constitutes journalism so that the only organizations that qualify for vouchers have to base their journalism on actual facts as judged by actual experts. The idea that outrageous lies like the Haitians eating pets thing or the Dominion Voting can be broadcast as possibly true should also be vomitous to free people.
Yes, we should be teaching civics in schools, but apparently we're not doing a very good job of it. It may be necessary to resort to bite-sized civics lessons to counteract the effect of little or no instruction on the subject, so people's eyes don't glaze over before the lesson is over.
As far as vouchers go, public library systems are supposed to be providing their cardholders with access to quality journalism, but I suspect most people don't even think of this option. Nowadays, you don't even have to visit a library to get access to newspapers & magazines.
Well, the Guardian comes close, under the aegis of a Trust, and support from a separate Foundation arm. Bezos could easily duplicate such a structure at the WaPo, that is IF he's really, really interested in quality journalism that speaks truth to power. However, his overtures to His Orange Holiness gainsays that hope, tant pis, and the fact the Bezos himself in fact epitomizes oligarchic power.
Support The Guardian!
A national online publication that focused relentlessly on issues and not politics per se is a great idea. But which oligarch or foundation will put up the half billion dollars a year it would take to fund it? (I'm not pulling that number out of a hat; that's about what the NYTimes spend on editorial and ancillary costs like defense lawyers).
Well, as Robt McChesney once said, "Like other public goods, if society wants it, it will require public policy and public spending. There is no other way." His successor, Victor Pickard, in Democracy Without Journalism proposed that the US spend $30 billion per year on public media.
I'm a fan of de-privatizing national political media. https://www.allsides.com/blog/proposal-5-enough-horse-race-already
It is not only right wing media that lie The left lies as well. A public media would go after any one that spews misinformation.
All good ideas, Dan. I’ve never been as disappointed in our legacy news organizations as I was after Trump walked all over them. But it’s a bit of a cop-out to conflate this immense coverage failure with the business model behind it. Outside of the very public and outrageous decisions by the owners of WaPo and the LATimes to pull their Harris endorsements, it’s still a fairly rare occurrence for owners of legacy papers to direct day to day coverage decisions and priorities. The fault here lies not with profiteers but with our fellow journalists themselves, who insisted on normalizing a candidate and a party that espoused hate, lies and misinformation. Simply pulling down the paywalls won’t mean a thing. Reform needs to come first from inside our newsrooms before we kick the owners out the door.
Excellent ideas. Is any of it possible in the next administration? Are any of the important things we need possible?