They're too committed to the (manifestly false) narrative that both parties are two sides of the same coin. Throw in "access journalism" and "anticipatory obedience" and the likelihood any of them will step up to the plate is virtually nil.
Large broadcast news networks are owned by individuals unwilling to take the risks required to speak the truth Mr. Froomkin describes. Their silence and that of other corporate executives who recognize the dangers Donald Trump represents are, imo, placing profit above all else.
The broadcast news networks are owned by big corporations, namely Comcast, Paramount, and Disney.
Corporations are naturally disposed to favor deregulation, tax cuts, and subsidies, and they are not actually people, no matter what SCOTUS says.
They have only one mission: maximum short-term profits. Long-term costs and consequences are not part of what shareholders demand they consider, so they are by their very nature short-sighted predators.
Non-profit media are our only hope for sustainable balance from the Fourth Estate.
How is this article possibly not about Gaza. How do you start with a Vietnam war analogy and not touch upon the media's ignorance and complicity in the "war"?
Mr. Froomkin, thank you for being a consistent voice in the wilderness speaking frankly about the threat Demented Convicted Rapist and Felon Trump poses to the nation and the world.
My hope is that one of them will have the foresight to realize that the surest way to rise above the rest of the pack is to speak truthfully about the dangers of another trump presidency. Americans needing someone to trust will remember and reward their courage. The personal risk of speaking out honestly is nothing compared to what is faced by ordinary people who don’t have the financial resources or status that gives the network anchors so much more safety.
At this point, any so-called foresight is still abject hindsight. MSM has had more than enough time and opportunity to speak the unvarnished truth about Trump, but, they lack the moral fortitude to do so, apparently. How many are saving some of the juicier tidbits about Trump’s steady decline psychologically and neurologically for a book to be published after the election?
The network anchors hold their chairs with the sufferance of corporate management, they know it, their bosses know it...this isn't 1967, where CBS was a discrete corporation, and not a part of an entertainment conglomerate, and where top CEOs have one eye on the bottom line, and the other eye on tRump/MAGA. If ANY of the high-profile anchors did a "Cronkite", they would be out in a New York minute, Dan...that's the sad reality of today's nooz biz, no two ways about it. Look elsewhere for the alarums and tocsins to be raised against tRump.
The three network anchors need to make these statements in the middle of their broadcasts, not at the end as your draft implies. That way, no station franchisee can cut the broadcast without airing their commentary. Because that will happen: Sinclair has done it already.
Expecting them to step up is beating a dead horse. Mariel Garza just resigned after Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of the Los Angeles Times blocked the editorial board’s plans to endorse Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris for president.
Sadly and frighteningly, there are no Cronkites in the current crop of media talking heads. And that is by design.
They're too committed to the (manifestly false) narrative that both parties are two sides of the same coin. Throw in "access journalism" and "anticipatory obedience" and the likelihood any of them will step up to the plate is virtually nil.
Large broadcast news networks are owned by individuals unwilling to take the risks required to speak the truth Mr. Froomkin describes. Their silence and that of other corporate executives who recognize the dangers Donald Trump represents are, imo, placing profit above all else.
The broadcast news networks are owned by big corporations, namely Comcast, Paramount, and Disney.
Corporations are naturally disposed to favor deregulation, tax cuts, and subsidies, and they are not actually people, no matter what SCOTUS says.
They have only one mission: maximum short-term profits. Long-term costs and consequences are not part of what shareholders demand they consider, so they are by their very nature short-sighted predators.
Non-profit media are our only hope for sustainable balance from the Fourth Estate.
Excellent. Do we not have anyone who will speak the truth, plainly and clearly?
How is this article possibly not about Gaza. How do you start with a Vietnam war analogy and not touch upon the media's ignorance and complicity in the "war"?
That's a fair point.
It’s not ignorance. It’s by deliberate choice.
Mr. Froomkin, thank you for being a consistent voice in the wilderness speaking frankly about the threat Demented Convicted Rapist and Felon Trump poses to the nation and the world.
My hope is that one of them will have the foresight to realize that the surest way to rise above the rest of the pack is to speak truthfully about the dangers of another trump presidency. Americans needing someone to trust will remember and reward their courage. The personal risk of speaking out honestly is nothing compared to what is faced by ordinary people who don’t have the financial resources or status that gives the network anchors so much more safety.
At this point, any so-called foresight is still abject hindsight. MSM has had more than enough time and opportunity to speak the unvarnished truth about Trump, but, they lack the moral fortitude to do so, apparently. How many are saving some of the juicier tidbits about Trump’s steady decline psychologically and neurologically for a book to be published after the election?
The network anchors hold their chairs with the sufferance of corporate management, they know it, their bosses know it...this isn't 1967, where CBS was a discrete corporation, and not a part of an entertainment conglomerate, and where top CEOs have one eye on the bottom line, and the other eye on tRump/MAGA. If ANY of the high-profile anchors did a "Cronkite", they would be out in a New York minute, Dan...that's the sad reality of today's nooz biz, no two ways about it. Look elsewhere for the alarums and tocsins to be raised against tRump.
The three network anchors need to make these statements in the middle of their broadcasts, not at the end as your draft implies. That way, no station franchisee can cut the broadcast without airing their commentary. Because that will happen: Sinclair has done it already.
Expecting them to step up is beating a dead horse. Mariel Garza just resigned after Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of the Los Angeles Times blocked the editorial board’s plans to endorse Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris for president.