Thank you for your honesty and integrity. I have puzzled over this situation of the lack of factual reporting by mainstream media. I guess there are a number of reasons including corporate ownership of media outlets and desire of the media companies to increase readership. They have not taken responsibility for their failure to adequately inform the public.
There's a more fundamental problem: very few people, even very well educated people, understand how economics works, and that includes news reporters, editors, and whomever. If you don't have any appreciation of economics at scale, you cannot possibly explain it to anyone else, or even consider it relevant to day-to-day activities. That's why people who are upset about non-existent inflation are so eager to support a candidate who's platform touts tariffs, which are incredibly inflationary. This election was a triumph of misinformation, much of it funded by those who will profit from the coming disaster. {Note: the ultra rich benefit from inflation and aren't the least bothered by grocery prices!]
The only way I can describe it is abject apathy on the part MSM. And now they will spend months and months navel gazing trying to convince their readers who haven’t jumped ship that they don’t know how they missed the mood in America and couldn’t deliver the coverage and analysis Americans needed to avert what people should consider a shocking and devastating electoral outcome. I’m numb, TBH.
Do you think MSNBC is credible? Would you put them in the same category as all the other news outlets that you mentioned who failed to inform their viewers?
IMO MSNBC is a credible news network. Their news anchors inform their viewers. I would not lump them in the same category as Fox, NPR, or even CNN.
I get a lot of my news from MSNBC and I'm familiar with the information that you mentioned bc they do a good job of reporting that information. Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Ali Velshi, Lawrence O'Donnell, Jen Psaki, Joy Reid, Ari Melber, Nicolle Wallace, Ayman M., Alex Wagner, to name a few...all credible. They do good work. Let's give credit to the news orgs that have been credibly informing us.
Billionaire investors are what it might take to get an unbiased pro- democracy national news organization that would explain the issues with clarity and manage to be accessible for people of all income levels. Accusations of elitism will not go away when quality is always behind a paywall. I think there are several who might back a venture that would support editorial independence (another defense against charges of elitism) once they realize that there is a huge untapped market for information combined with good judgment and integrity . Just a promise to not be a publicity machine manipulated by trump would be attractive to millions. Not reporting every inanity, tweet, or pushing his face in ours every day (or year) would be a welcome relief. Gather together the best of Sub-stack and other outlets, put it in print or somewhere unreachable by trolls, therefore attracting advertisers who share the values and respect independence. It also might be the ultimate philanthropy. Quality journalism has the potential to change everything.
Once upon a time an average person could lay their hands on a newspaper left behind in a coffee shop or laundromat, not spending money they couldn’t afford, but learning a lot. Gift articles are a nice gesture but nowhere near enough to help the loss of quality. Fox is free. How do you effectively counter that?
My little dream that a much better writer than me could take this silly idea, shine it up and pitch it to someone who would get the idea. Sigh.
And what are the odds that the press does nothing when Trump takes credit for the effects of the Biden economic recovery, effects of the IRA, etc., as he did when he inherited Obama's economy? No push-back then, likely none coming this time. Frankly, though, I suspect that even if you provided every Trump voter with an easy-to-follow collection of misinformation/disinformation rebuttals, they still would stick with what they hear on FAUX "News" and their like iterations. And, of course my post will cause me to be doxxed as an out of touch elitist, even though I provide care to and serve the MAGA faithful on a daily basis with nothing but empathy and compassion.
Dan, I agree with you, but something you have failed to mention and perhaps you have a reason why, but, Reporters Without Borders, World Press Freedom Index now lists the US press at number 55. This is appalling. Can you address this please? This would really help to put things into perspective if it’s true.
My husband, who is French (and now) American, started in Vietnam when he was 18 as a French photojournalist. He remarked that even back then the Americans were not telling the truth or not the whole truth. The journalists were on the front lines and aware of what was happening, but at American press briefings they were laughing because what was being briefed was not true. My point is that there is a long history in the American press of lying or not revealing the whole truth either influence by politics or money. Let’s face it. The American press is corrupt.
Totally agree, Dan. It's shameful and why many of us have been criticizing the big media corps for the past 4 years. Appreciate your voice on this, but is the industry listening?
Media needs to do mea culpas. Be careful of blanket criticism of all media. It is noteworthy, how both parties and right and left were critical of the news. This contributed to a loss of trust in all media, which distrust disproportionately benefits one party.
Don't let DNC and its campaign consultants off the hook. Biden/Harris had several years to promote their projects. Why didn't DNC do ads showing people talking about how much money they saved thru Biden era tax credits and child care help and about new factory being built in background?
I turned off MSNBC at 8:30 pm (CT) and cancelled my subscription to HULU Live. I got into my car Wednesday morning and NPR automatically was on. I listened for 30 seconds and then turn it off. Yesterday I peeked at the headlines on both my MSNBC and NPR apps and in response to what I saw, deleted them. (PBS Newshour survives...so far). Going forward I will read only the handful of journalists and historians I follow here on Substack, like you Dan. Thank you, for your straightforwardness. It's much appreciated.
off top of head-- Oliver Willis, Hamilton Nolan, Eric Topol (translational medicine), Sherrilyn Ifill doesn't post often but her piece was the most compelling I read Wednesday morning, Jarad Yates Sexton, Sarah Kendzior
As a retired print reporter/editor from a metro daily, I’d like to take issue with your take, but I can’t. My former colleagues (particularly editors who knew better) are guilty as charged. Objectivity was not the goal. It was instead “balance” taken to a perverse extreme. Industry wide. Balance that concealed truth.
I actually agree with Dean Baker that the media has a strong bias for conservative economics which is why they refuse to give Biden credit for making our economy what the Economist recently called “the envy of the world”. Baker calls it “media macro”.
I agree 100%. Four decades ago, newspapers decided that economic reporting and explaining how things worked was important. That focus evaporated in this century, leaving at least one generation and probably two without even a basic understanding about how the US economy functions. Americans are woefully ignorant of how the pieces of the puzzle work. Instead of honest explanations of who things were working and what a Trump’s policies would do, reporting on the economy focused on the doom and gloom it meant for Biden’s, then Harris’, election prospects.
For the Biden administration to have kept inflation from rising would have taken near-Stalin levels of intervention--the sorts of policies that would have been denounced as harming the free market.
One Washington Post columnist wrote that Trump won because Americans hate inflation more than job losses. If Trump manages to execute his tariff and deportation plans, they’ll have both.
The corporate media's bias against democrats has been blatant for a long time. Go back and look at their coverage of the too intellectual Al Gore, who had the audacity to sigh during a debate, or the incessant overblown coverage of Hillary's emails. They've been doing it without consequence for so long that it was easy to ramp up to a standing level of disrespect, vilification, distortion and outright contempt for Biden. The media is to blame for the downplaying of climate change, the disastrous war in Iraq, income inequality and on and on. All of it. Of course our elected officials are responsible but they wouldn't have been in positions of power without the active support of big media.
I really believe the underlying bias of our mainstream “liberal” media is subconscious sexism. There is research that shows people subconsciously think the Democrats are the “Mommy Party”, representing traditionally feminine values; Republicans are the “Strong Father” family and represent strength, toughness, power, etc.
I will never forget now the media was so obviously impressed by the tough guy macho swagger of Bush and Cheney when in reality they were both chickenhawks who did everything they could to avoid serving in a war they supported. Yet the media downplayed the draft avoidance of both men. In contrast they had previously crucified Bill Clinton as a draft dodger because he has take deferments (like Cheney) but eventually left his name in the draft and only avoided being called up by getting a high number in the lottery. And unlike the warmongering, draft-avoiding Bush and Cheney, Clinton was a very vocal opponent of the Vietnam War. (A war both Kerry and Gore served in.)
And then there was the fact the media gave Bush, who failed to complete his National Guard Service, a pass for trashing Kerry’s very real war heroism. The people behind the Swift Boaters’ slander were big Bush donors so there is no way Bush and Rove didn’t know what they were doing. By that time the media knew that Poppy Bush had personally approved the racist Willie Horton ad then lied by claiming he had had nothing to do with the independent group running it. They also knew Lee Atwater was the guy who had engineered the Willie Horton ad and the Karl Rove had been Atwater’s understudy.
The only Democrat in my lifetime that the media treated with the kind of respect they gave to Reagan and both Bushes was the glamorous playboy JFK. Carter and his people got the rube treatment and he was frequently described as a peanut farmer which was clearly not meant as a compliment. Both Clinton’s were treated as hillbilly con artists, even before the Monica insanity. (Given the media’s ongoing admiration for the very promiscuous JFK their outrage over Clinton was clear evidence of a double standard IMO). There has been more media outrage over than there ever was over Republicans holding multiple investigation of the insane, vicious and deeply cruel slander that the Clintons had murdered their close friend Vince Foster.
While agreeing with much of this, I have to correct this on one point. Clinton got a brief deferment from an order to report for duty because he promised Colonel Eugene Holmes he would join the ROTC. Clinton didn't, and indeed he told Holmes in a letter [1] that he did this to protect his future political viability. It was a very slippery move, legal but not particularly honorable.
Both Clintons had a problem with lawyering the truth, of not being fully forthcoming. "I did not have sex with that woman" was an example of trying to mislead by using the word "sex" to mean "intercourse."
It's not that the media are too hard on Democrats. It's that they simply refuse to be as hard on Republicans. A gunner in Poppy Bush's squadron claims that Bush abandoned the aircraft before his crew had a chance to get off [2]. It never got anywhere near the coverage that Colonel Holmes got, even though if (and, let's be clear, the claim is uncorroborated) the gunner's claim is true, Bush's action would have been far more dishonorable than Clinton's.
As long as news sources are owned by billionaires, the truth will be something that you will need to dig up yourself. (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Rupert Murdoch, Patrick Soon-Shiong are 4 who have remade their tools into pure propaganda machines) X should go away, The Washington Post , New York Posts, and LA Times, need to be independent or they will wither and die.
Oddly, newspapers have been owned by rich, white men for more than a century. The difference is how those owners view the world, their place in it and whether they have the power to push back against a demagogue. Forty, 50 years ago and before, they did have that power. In the post-Reagan era, Republicans decided they lost because of what they contend was media bias, taking no responsibility for their losing ideas and policies or defending them with lies. In the present, traditional media’s influence has waned and while the influence of podcasts and websites has risen, it’s nowhere near the king-making levels of 19th and 20th centuries. The diffusive nature of media today serves mis- and disinformation quite well. John Locke’s ideal of a free marketplace of ideas has been turned into an open sewer.
Republicans made a concerted effort to intimidate the media, even before Reagan Spiro Agnew used a lot of the same attacks, even the same wording, as Trump made. There was also a wealthy right wing man (can’t remember his name) who bought enough shares of the NYTimes that he got a seat on the board. He was so disruptive that he was given private meetings with the top brass to get him out of the board meetings. This was decades ago.
Mark Hertsgaard wrote in his excellent book “On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency” that two of Reagan’s top aides, David Gergen and Richard Darman admitted that Reagan’s Teflon was mainky due not to Reagan’s personality, but to the media holding back criticism. They ascribed this not just to reporters but to their bosses. For example tough coverage of Reagan’s economic policies or of the brutal regime in El Salvador that Reagan supported was reigned in by media bosses.
During the Raygun years, INS went after a church in Tucson that was giving immigrants sanctuary.
Spiro called the press plenty of names, but his corruption got him in the end. Nixon got away with more than Watergate, with Kissinger’s help.
If Americans want to know why so many people from Central America are coming here, they need look no further than US foreign policy, especially in the 1980s.
Thank you for your honesty and integrity. I have puzzled over this situation of the lack of factual reporting by mainstream media. I guess there are a number of reasons including corporate ownership of media outlets and desire of the media companies to increase readership. They have not taken responsibility for their failure to adequately inform the public.
There's a more fundamental problem: very few people, even very well educated people, understand how economics works, and that includes news reporters, editors, and whomever. If you don't have any appreciation of economics at scale, you cannot possibly explain it to anyone else, or even consider it relevant to day-to-day activities. That's why people who are upset about non-existent inflation are so eager to support a candidate who's platform touts tariffs, which are incredibly inflationary. This election was a triumph of misinformation, much of it funded by those who will profit from the coming disaster. {Note: the ultra rich benefit from inflation and aren't the least bothered by grocery prices!]
Agreed, but focus on headlines. That’s all many people read.
The only way I can describe it is abject apathy on the part MSM. And now they will spend months and months navel gazing trying to convince their readers who haven’t jumped ship that they don’t know how they missed the mood in America and couldn’t deliver the coverage and analysis Americans needed to avert what people should consider a shocking and devastating electoral outcome. I’m numb, TBH.
Do you think MSNBC is credible? Would you put them in the same category as all the other news outlets that you mentioned who failed to inform their viewers?
IMO MSNBC is a credible news network. Their news anchors inform their viewers. I would not lump them in the same category as Fox, NPR, or even CNN.
I get a lot of my news from MSNBC and I'm familiar with the information that you mentioned bc they do a good job of reporting that information. Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Ali Velshi, Lawrence O'Donnell, Jen Psaki, Joy Reid, Ari Melber, Nicolle Wallace, Ayman M., Alex Wagner, to name a few...all credible. They do good work. Let's give credit to the news orgs that have been credibly informing us.
Billionaire investors are what it might take to get an unbiased pro- democracy national news organization that would explain the issues with clarity and manage to be accessible for people of all income levels. Accusations of elitism will not go away when quality is always behind a paywall. I think there are several who might back a venture that would support editorial independence (another defense against charges of elitism) once they realize that there is a huge untapped market for information combined with good judgment and integrity . Just a promise to not be a publicity machine manipulated by trump would be attractive to millions. Not reporting every inanity, tweet, or pushing his face in ours every day (or year) would be a welcome relief. Gather together the best of Sub-stack and other outlets, put it in print or somewhere unreachable by trolls, therefore attracting advertisers who share the values and respect independence. It also might be the ultimate philanthropy. Quality journalism has the potential to change everything.
Once upon a time an average person could lay their hands on a newspaper left behind in a coffee shop or laundromat, not spending money they couldn’t afford, but learning a lot. Gift articles are a nice gesture but nowhere near enough to help the loss of quality. Fox is free. How do you effectively counter that?
My little dream that a much better writer than me could take this silly idea, shine it up and pitch it to someone who would get the idea. Sigh.
And what are the odds that the press does nothing when Trump takes credit for the effects of the Biden economic recovery, effects of the IRA, etc., as he did when he inherited Obama's economy? No push-back then, likely none coming this time. Frankly, though, I suspect that even if you provided every Trump voter with an easy-to-follow collection of misinformation/disinformation rebuttals, they still would stick with what they hear on FAUX "News" and their like iterations. And, of course my post will cause me to be doxxed as an out of touch elitist, even though I provide care to and serve the MAGA faithful on a daily basis with nothing but empathy and compassion.
Dan, I agree with you, but something you have failed to mention and perhaps you have a reason why, but, Reporters Without Borders, World Press Freedom Index now lists the US press at number 55. This is appalling. Can you address this please? This would really help to put things into perspective if it’s true.
My husband, who is French (and now) American, started in Vietnam when he was 18 as a French photojournalist. He remarked that even back then the Americans were not telling the truth or not the whole truth. The journalists were on the front lines and aware of what was happening, but at American press briefings they were laughing because what was being briefed was not true. My point is that there is a long history in the American press of lying or not revealing the whole truth either influence by politics or money. Let’s face it. The American press is corrupt.
Totally agree, Dan. It's shameful and why many of us have been criticizing the big media corps for the past 4 years. Appreciate your voice on this, but is the industry listening?
Media needs to do mea culpas. Be careful of blanket criticism of all media. It is noteworthy, how both parties and right and left were critical of the news. This contributed to a loss of trust in all media, which distrust disproportionately benefits one party.
Don't let DNC and its campaign consultants off the hook. Biden/Harris had several years to promote their projects. Why didn't DNC do ads showing people talking about how much money they saved thru Biden era tax credits and child care help and about new factory being built in background?
I turned off MSNBC at 8:30 pm (CT) and cancelled my subscription to HULU Live. I got into my car Wednesday morning and NPR automatically was on. I listened for 30 seconds and then turn it off. Yesterday I peeked at the headlines on both my MSNBC and NPR apps and in response to what I saw, deleted them. (PBS Newshour survives...so far). Going forward I will read only the handful of journalists and historians I follow here on Substack, like you Dan. Thank you, for your straightforwardness. It's much appreciated.
Who do you follow? I recommend Aaron Rupar, James Fallows, Margaret Sullivan, Dean Baker, Eric Alterman and Paul Waldman for starters.
Great list! I need to check out Dean Baker and Eric Alterman. I follow the others. Thanks!
off top of head-- Oliver Willis, Hamilton Nolan, Eric Topol (translational medicine), Sherrilyn Ifill doesn't post often but her piece was the most compelling I read Wednesday morning, Jarad Yates Sexton, Sarah Kendzior
As a retired print reporter/editor from a metro daily, I’d like to take issue with your take, but I can’t. My former colleagues (particularly editors who knew better) are guilty as charged. Objectivity was not the goal. It was instead “balance” taken to a perverse extreme. Industry wide. Balance that concealed truth.
I actually agree with Dean Baker that the media has a strong bias for conservative economics which is why they refuse to give Biden credit for making our economy what the Economist recently called “the envy of the world”. Baker calls it “media macro”.
I agree 100%. Four decades ago, newspapers decided that economic reporting and explaining how things worked was important. That focus evaporated in this century, leaving at least one generation and probably two without even a basic understanding about how the US economy functions. Americans are woefully ignorant of how the pieces of the puzzle work. Instead of honest explanations of who things were working and what a Trump’s policies would do, reporting on the economy focused on the doom and gloom it meant for Biden’s, then Harris’, election prospects.
For the Biden administration to have kept inflation from rising would have taken near-Stalin levels of intervention--the sorts of policies that would have been denounced as harming the free market.
One Washington Post columnist wrote that Trump won because Americans hate inflation more than job losses. If Trump manages to execute his tariff and deportation plans, they’ll have both.
Hard agree
The corporate media's bias against democrats has been blatant for a long time. Go back and look at their coverage of the too intellectual Al Gore, who had the audacity to sigh during a debate, or the incessant overblown coverage of Hillary's emails. They've been doing it without consequence for so long that it was easy to ramp up to a standing level of disrespect, vilification, distortion and outright contempt for Biden. The media is to blame for the downplaying of climate change, the disastrous war in Iraq, income inequality and on and on. All of it. Of course our elected officials are responsible but they wouldn't have been in positions of power without the active support of big media.
Anyone who doubts what you say should read this description of how the media treated Gore:
“Going After Gore”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/10/gore200710?srsltid=AfmBOopzGAPCF0VzqT0DLNK253B6PuAISfhI-GXSCZ4aBqHoBQ4FyaF8
And this:
“ The Times’ Frank Bruni, or How to Succeed in Journalism Without Really Caring (About Issues)
The newest columnist at The New York Times doesn’t have much to say about substantive issues, writes Eric Alterman.”
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/think-again-the-times-frank-bruni-or-how-to-succeed-in-journalism-without-really-caring-about-issues/
I really believe the underlying bias of our mainstream “liberal” media is subconscious sexism. There is research that shows people subconsciously think the Democrats are the “Mommy Party”, representing traditionally feminine values; Republicans are the “Strong Father” family and represent strength, toughness, power, etc.
I will never forget now the media was so obviously impressed by the tough guy macho swagger of Bush and Cheney when in reality they were both chickenhawks who did everything they could to avoid serving in a war they supported. Yet the media downplayed the draft avoidance of both men. In contrast they had previously crucified Bill Clinton as a draft dodger because he has take deferments (like Cheney) but eventually left his name in the draft and only avoided being called up by getting a high number in the lottery. And unlike the warmongering, draft-avoiding Bush and Cheney, Clinton was a very vocal opponent of the Vietnam War. (A war both Kerry and Gore served in.)
And then there was the fact the media gave Bush, who failed to complete his National Guard Service, a pass for trashing Kerry’s very real war heroism. The people behind the Swift Boaters’ slander were big Bush donors so there is no way Bush and Rove didn’t know what they were doing. By that time the media knew that Poppy Bush had personally approved the racist Willie Horton ad then lied by claiming he had had nothing to do with the independent group running it. They also knew Lee Atwater was the guy who had engineered the Willie Horton ad and the Karl Rove had been Atwater’s understudy.
The only Democrat in my lifetime that the media treated with the kind of respect they gave to Reagan and both Bushes was the glamorous playboy JFK. Carter and his people got the rube treatment and he was frequently described as a peanut farmer which was clearly not meant as a compliment. Both Clinton’s were treated as hillbilly con artists, even before the Monica insanity. (Given the media’s ongoing admiration for the very promiscuous JFK their outrage over Clinton was clear evidence of a double standard IMO). There has been more media outrage over than there ever was over Republicans holding multiple investigation of the insane, vicious and deeply cruel slander that the Clintons had murdered their close friend Vince Foster.
While agreeing with much of this, I have to correct this on one point. Clinton got a brief deferment from an order to report for duty because he promised Colonel Eugene Holmes he would join the ROTC. Clinton didn't, and indeed he told Holmes in a letter [1] that he did this to protect his future political viability. It was a very slippery move, legal but not particularly honorable.
Both Clintons had a problem with lawyering the truth, of not being fully forthcoming. "I did not have sex with that woman" was an example of trying to mislead by using the word "sex" to mean "intercourse."
It's not that the media are too hard on Democrats. It's that they simply refuse to be as hard on Republicans. A gunner in Poppy Bush's squadron claims that Bush abandoned the aircraft before his crew had a chance to get off [2]. It never got anywhere near the coverage that Colonel Holmes got, even though if (and, let's be clear, the claim is uncorroborated) the gunner's claim is true, Bush's action would have been far more dishonorable than Clinton's.
1. www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html
2. www.upi.com/Archives/1988/08/12/Gunner-disputes-Bush-account-of-downed-plane/9438587361600/
Yup. All of it,
As long as news sources are owned by billionaires, the truth will be something that you will need to dig up yourself. (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Rupert Murdoch, Patrick Soon-Shiong are 4 who have remade their tools into pure propaganda machines) X should go away, The Washington Post , New York Posts, and LA Times, need to be independent or they will wither and die.
Oddly, newspapers have been owned by rich, white men for more than a century. The difference is how those owners view the world, their place in it and whether they have the power to push back against a demagogue. Forty, 50 years ago and before, they did have that power. In the post-Reagan era, Republicans decided they lost because of what they contend was media bias, taking no responsibility for their losing ideas and policies or defending them with lies. In the present, traditional media’s influence has waned and while the influence of podcasts and websites has risen, it’s nowhere near the king-making levels of 19th and 20th centuries. The diffusive nature of media today serves mis- and disinformation quite well. John Locke’s ideal of a free marketplace of ideas has been turned into an open sewer.
Republicans made a concerted effort to intimidate the media, even before Reagan Spiro Agnew used a lot of the same attacks, even the same wording, as Trump made. There was also a wealthy right wing man (can’t remember his name) who bought enough shares of the NYTimes that he got a seat on the board. He was so disruptive that he was given private meetings with the top brass to get him out of the board meetings. This was decades ago.
Mark Hertsgaard wrote in his excellent book “On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency” that two of Reagan’s top aides, David Gergen and Richard Darman admitted that Reagan’s Teflon was mainky due not to Reagan’s personality, but to the media holding back criticism. They ascribed this not just to reporters but to their bosses. For example tough coverage of Reagan’s economic policies or of the brutal regime in El Salvador that Reagan supported was reigned in by media bosses.
During the Raygun years, INS went after a church in Tucson that was giving immigrants sanctuary.
Spiro called the press plenty of names, but his corruption got him in the end. Nixon got away with more than Watergate, with Kissinger’s help.
If Americans want to know why so many people from Central America are coming here, they need look no further than US foreign policy, especially in the 1980s.
The difference is that they had money, For modern Billionaires, the Money has Them.