7 ms·

Axois seems to do a decent job. However, if you watch their interviews, for example, you quickly realize the problem isn't maintaining veracity as a fair sourc

Axois seems to do a decent job. However, if you watch their interviews, for example, you quickly realize the problem isn't maintaining veracity as a fair source of news. The problem is if the reporters remain intrepid (as they currently seem to be), the people they interview-- like Ted Cruz-- end up looking like complete dumbasses. I'm honestly surprised they continue to get interviews with prominent figures. That, to me, is the bigger problem. There are plenty of partisan pundits who feel comfortable appearing on the "other" cable news to play the wrestling villain. Nearly none of them will ever appear on Democracy Now, for example, because Amy will: 1. not negotiate ground rules for the interview in advance 2. ask occasional follow-up questions Amy Goodman clearly sits pretty far on the left. But those two simple rules essentially made her as much of a nuisance to Bill Clinton as to George Bush. (And if you haven't heard it, go on youtube and watch her grill Clinton when he was attempting to campaign during Hilary's Senate run on Democracy Now.) And that's the bigger issue. I don't really care whether some pundit reinforces my worldview or not. I care whether they fold under pressure when an intrepid reporter reveals they don't know what they're talking about. The problem with MSNBC/Fox/CNN is they don't usually (or even consistently) apply that pressure. (And sometimes actively suppress it, e.g., not telling their audience that one of their military analysts who is arguing for an invasion is also a board member of a defense contractor that would benefit from the invasion.) Edit: clarifications

save_ferris 6y ago
This is so true, and it doesn't get discussed enough. Folks like Medhi Hassan and Jonathan Swan are a completely different kind of journalist than most of the folks that occupy the airwaves, and it's really frustrating to watch the news when you know people like that are setting a much higher bar than everyone else.
kgog 6y ago
> I'm honestly surprised they continue to get interviews with prominent figures. All that matters to them is staying relevant. They don't care about friendly or unfriendly interviews. The figures need the media more than the media needs them.
- afavour 6y ago
  > The figures need the media more than the media needs them. That's where generalizing to "the media" causes problems, though. They do need some media to stay relevant, but can absolutely stay with sympathetic media outlets that will never challenge them. Ted Cruz need never give an interview to the likes of Axios for the rest of his career and he'll be absolutely fine with just Fox News.
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
>The problem is if the reporters remain intrepid (as they currently seem to be), the people they interview-- like Ted Cruz-- end up looking like complete dumbasses. I'm honestly surprised they continue to get interviews with prominent figures. I grew up watching the BBC, and even though I emigrated from the UK before the famed "I ask you again minister, is that a yes or a no" repeats of jeremy paxman, this was something that always struck me about politicians on the BBC: why did they keep coming back? What I've realized over time was they kept coming back because they had to. If you were a UK politician at least well into the 1990s (and arguably right up to today), both the media infrastructure and the social culture required your appearance, even if you knew that David Marr or Paxman or whoever was going to chew you out. That's not true anymore in the USA (it may also not be true in the UK either). There's really no reason why anyone needs to appear anywhere. Get a reputation as a fiery take-no-bullshit interviewer, and you won't be doing any interviews. I don't think there's any way out of this now. The media landscape has exploded, and there's no outlet that is of enough importance anymore to hold people's feet to the fire.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > The media landscape has exploded, and there's no outlet that is of enough importance anymore to hold people's feet to the fire. Maybe not, but I'd still like a Fairness Doctrine -aligned news source such that I can do my part in rejecting dubious partisan citations (e.g., "I'm not going to believe your $partisanNewsSource article, but I might be more inclined to believe you you can support yourself with something on $aspirationallyNeutralNewsSource").
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    I don't even understand what the "Fairness Doctrine" would mean today. In the 1960s and 70s and early 80s, it essentially gave a right of reply on broadcast media. It meant nothing on cable, it mean nothing in the world of books, it didn't mean much for the press (they had to be careful about libel anyway). If it is raining outside, and there's someone who says "it's raining outside" and someone says "it's not raining outside", how is anyone's life improved by the idea that they should both be given air time? The job of a journalist/reporter/something is to figure out what is going on, and tell that story (maybe by using quotes from other people). The problem is that when the story is more complex than "is it raining?" there isn't a single answer, and there isn't a single way to tell the story. In making choices about what to tell and in what order, one becomes "partisan". I prefer the solution in the UK, where nobody seriously thinks of any newspaper as "neutral", and yet despite their relatively clear biases, they all manage to tell roughly the same stories, albeit with different emphasis. Contrast that to the US, where mainstream and rightwing-media-claiming-to-be-mainstream don't even tell the same stories, and when they do, they sometimes make essentially opposite claims about them. There will always be room for "fringe" or "eclectic" takes. The far-left has had to deal with that essentially forever, and the far-right used to. What's really changed IMO is that in the last few decades, approaches to story-telling (which is all journalism really is) that used to be confined to the fringe far-right outlets ended up appearing on mass-audience outlets.
snarf21 6y ago
Well said. My take is that there is almost no news anymore, only infotainment. It is more important to outrage and click bait than to pursue truth. It is all about eyeballs and ad revenue. I don't know how to pay for good news platforms because people want it for free.
ShamelessC 6y ago
> the people they interview-- like Ted Cruz-- end up looking like complete dumbasses So first off, I haven't seen a specific example of this as I'm not a frequenter of Axios interviews. Could you post the interview you're referring to? I'm having trouble saying this in a way that isn't flame-bait-ish, so I won't be using your word "dumbasses". Not because I disagree, but because it could be off-putting to Ted Cruz supporters in a way that obviously is intended to outrage them. Sorry, but I feel it's important to be very careful with our wording here after the events at the Capitol. With that disclaimer out of the way - Is it a stretch to say that Ted Cruz doesn't really need much help from interviewers to make himself appear unrelatable to average people? From what I've seen of him, that's 100% true. On the other hand, I can also absolutely see the style of interviewer you're referring to. They're more excited about a "gotcha" moment than they are about an informed discussion with the interviewee. Is that what you're referring to? Thanks, and again I really hope I haven't offended anyone. If I have feel free to downvote me, I suppose. I'd appreciate a comment explaining why you did so I can work on being less offensive in the future, but if you don't feel like you need to explain yourself, that's also okay.
- js2 6y ago
  Probably the recent interview with Jonathan Swan. I think you’ll need HBO to see the full interview but segments of it are on YouTube. https://www.axios.com/ted-cruz-axios-on-hbo-bc6addab-ef33-4309-bd10-351bc00bd373.html https://www.axios.com/ted-cruz-axios-on-hbo-bc6addab-ef33-43...
- psadauskas 6y ago
  I haven't seen the one with Cruz, but I did see the one with T**p that was pretty internet-famous a few months ago. The interviewer didn't seem so much "excitable" as exasperated that the subject couldn't provide a coherent answer and frustrated he had to re-phrase the same question over and over before giving up and moving on. It would have been easy to set a gotcha trap, but I thought the interviewer did a good job keeping it professional and asking real questions that deserved answers.
  - flyingfences 6y ago
johnchristopher 6y ago
I love Axios, wish there was a European version. But I don't read it for the interviews. I read it for the brevity and clarity. Interviews are muddier.
admiralspoo 6y ago
Axios is not any better than other sources such as CNN, NYT, etc. The main problem is that news is cheap and free in the digital era -- so what is left to sell is opinions, conjecture and analysis. Axios is no different in this regard than other organizations.
anongraddebt 6y ago
>MSNBC/Fox/CNN An alternate explanation is that these are not news outlets, and haven't been for years. Instead, they are merely editorial outlets.
- greedo 6y ago
  An alternate, alternate explanation was that there were never news outlets. They were always editorial; whether consciously or unconsciously, the stories that were run were selected (thus edited) by the producers, writers, reporters, and eventually their sponsors.

save_ferris 6y ago

This is so true, and it doesn't get discussed enough. Folks like Medhi Hassan and Jonathan Swan are a completely different kind of journalist than most of the folks that occupy the airwaves, and it's really frustrating to watch the news when you know people like that are setting a much higher bar than everyone else.

kgog 6y ago

> I'm honestly surprised they continue to get interviews with prominent figures. All that matters to them is staying relevant. They don't care about friendly or unfriendly interviews. The figures need the media more than the media needs them.

afavour 6y ago
> The figures need the media more than the media needs them. That's where generalizing to "the media" causes problems, though. They do need some media to stay relevant, but can absolutely stay with sympathetic media outlets that will never challenge them. Ted Cruz need never give an interview to the likes of Axios for the rest of his career and he'll be absolutely fine with just Fox News.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

>The problem is if the reporters remain intrepid (as they currently seem to be), the people they interview-- like Ted Cruz-- end up looking like complete dumbasses. I'm honestly surprised they continue to get interviews with prominent figures. I grew up watching the BBC, and even though I emigrated from the UK before the famed "I ask you again minister, is that a yes or a no" repeats of jeremy paxman, this was something that always struck me about politicians on the BBC: why did they keep coming back? What I've realized over time was they kept coming back because they had to. If you were a UK politician at least well into the 1990s (and arguably right up to today), both the media infrastructure and the social culture required your appearance, even if you knew that David Marr or Paxman or whoever was going to chew you out. That's not true anymore in the USA (it may also not be true in the UK either). There's really no reason why anyone needs to appear anywhere. Get a reputation as a fiery take-no-bullshit interviewer, and you won't be doing any interviews. I don't think there's any way out of this now. The media landscape has exploded, and there's no outlet that is of enough importance anymore to hold people's feet to the fire.

throwaway894345 6y ago
> The media landscape has exploded, and there's no outlet that is of enough importance anymore to hold people's feet to the fire. Maybe not, but I'd still like a Fairness Doctrine -aligned news source such that I can do my part in rejecting dubious partisan citations (e.g., "I'm not going to believe your $partisanNewsSource article, but I might be more inclined to believe you you can support yourself with something on $aspirationallyNeutralNewsSource").
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  I don't even understand what the "Fairness Doctrine" would mean today. In the 1960s and 70s and early 80s, it essentially gave a right of reply on broadcast media. It meant nothing on cable, it mean nothing in the world of books, it didn't mean much for the press (they had to be careful about libel anyway). If it is raining outside, and there's someone who says "it's raining outside" and someone says "it's not raining outside", how is anyone's life improved by the idea that they should both be given air time? The job of a journalist/reporter/something is to figure out what is going on, and tell that story (maybe by using quotes from other people). The problem is that when the story is more complex than "is it raining?" there isn't a single answer, and there isn't a single way to tell the story. In making choices about what to tell and in what order, one becomes "partisan". I prefer the solution in the UK, where nobody seriously thinks of any newspaper as "neutral", and yet despite their relatively clear biases, they all manage to tell roughly the same stories, albeit with different emphasis. Contrast that to the US, where mainstream and rightwing-media-claiming-to-be-mainstream don't even tell the same stories, and when they do, they sometimes make essentially opposite claims about them. There will always be room for "fringe" or "eclectic" takes. The far-left has had to deal with that essentially forever, and the far-right used to. What's really changed IMO is that in the last few decades, approaches to story-telling (which is all journalism really is) that used to be confined to the fringe far-right outlets ended up appearing on mass-audience outlets.

snarf21 6y ago

Well said. My take is that there is almost no news anymore, only infotainment. It is more important to outrage and click bait than to pursue truth. It is all about eyeballs and ad revenue. I don't know how to pay for good news platforms because people want it for free.

ShamelessC 6y ago

> the people they interview-- like Ted Cruz-- end up looking like complete dumbasses So first off, I haven't seen a specific example of this as I'm not a frequenter of Axios interviews. Could you post the interview you're referring to? I'm having trouble saying this in a way that isn't flame-bait-ish, so I won't be using your word "dumbasses". Not because I disagree, but because it could be off-putting to Ted Cruz supporters in a way that obviously is intended to outrage them. Sorry, but I feel it's important to be very careful with our wording here after the events at the Capitol. With that disclaimer out of the way - Is it a stretch to say that Ted Cruz doesn't really need much help from interviewers to make himself appear unrelatable to average people? From what I've seen of him, that's 100% true. On the other hand, I can also absolutely see the style of interviewer you're referring to. They're more excited about a "gotcha" moment than they are about an informed discussion with the interviewee. Is that what you're referring to? Thanks, and again I really hope I haven't offended anyone. If I have feel free to downvote me, I suppose. I'd appreciate a comment explaining why you did so I can work on being less offensive in the future, but if you don't feel like you need to explain yourself, that's also okay.

js2 6y ago
Probably the recent interview with Jonathan Swan. I think you’ll need HBO to see the full interview but segments of it are on YouTube. https://www.axios.com/ted-cruz-axios-on-hbo-bc6addab-ef33-4309-bd10-351bc00bd373.html https://www.axios.com/ted-cruz-axios-on-hbo-bc6addab-ef33-43...
psadauskas 6y ago
I haven't seen the one with Cruz, but I did see the one with T**p that was pretty internet-famous a few months ago. The interviewer didn't seem so much "excitable" as exasperated that the subject couldn't provide a coherent answer and frustrated he had to re-phrase the same question over and over before giving up and moving on. It would have been easy to set a gotcha trap, but I thought the interviewer did a good job keeping it professional and asking real questions that deserved answers.
- flyingfences 6y ago

johnchristopher 6y ago

I love Axios, wish there was a European version. But I don't read it for the interviews. I read it for the brevity and clarity. Interviews are muddier.

admiralspoo 6y ago

Axios is not any better than other sources such as CNN, NYT, etc. The main problem is that news is cheap and free in the digital era -- so what is left to sell is opinions, conjecture and analysis. Axios is no different in this regard than other organizations.

anongraddebt 6y ago

>MSNBC/Fox/CNN An alternate explanation is that these are not news outlets, and haven't been for years. Instead, they are merely editorial outlets.

greedo 6y ago
An alternate, alternate explanation was that there were never news outlets. They were always editorial; whether consciously or unconsciously, the stories that were run were selected (thus edited) by the producers, writers, reporters, and eventually their sponsors.