4 ms·

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 way

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.)

burnt-resistor 1y ago
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.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  This is a casual and lazy take. 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.
  - pseudocomposer 1y ago
    > 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). Certainly, we need reporters who have physical access to people in Washington, DC. But why do you think the way beltway media operates today is optimal? I’d argue it’s actually quite pathological. I think local reporters, from any county of any state, should be able to routinely go to and report from DC. This would probably have to be paid for with some combination of state, federal, and local taxes (and hopefully concessions from the federal government to let smaller towns/cities in). Yes, there would be “inefficiencies,” but of course the tradeoff is we have robust, trustworthy media. In today’s news media market, only reporters working for big corporations can even afford to stay in and report from DC. In fact… that’s exactly the problem. These people really are deeply disconnected from beltway outsiders (99% of our population). As a member of the general public capable of understanding even elementary school playground social dynamics, you’d honestly have to be pretty braindead to trust what comes out of a “news” system that operates this way. Finally let’s address your assertion (without evidence or anecdotes) that “decentralized smaller media holding powerful entities to account hasn’t shown us that it works better.” Um, are you familiar with the American Revolution? Or French Revolution? Or Bolshevik? Do you think these people were recruiting, marketing, and communicating through centralized news channels? And to go only just a bit further back… you do realize that the printing press has barely been around for a fraction of human history, right? We also didn’t have the internet in the past. The internet has basically been a death blow for the actual profitability of the big corporate news media orgs that we allowed to form from the 1870s-1980s. This handful of news mega-corporations we had then just can’t operate in a way any American would describe as “ethical,” and also earn a profit, in a world where the internet exists. Since then, the economic system that created them has pushed them to “consolidate for efficiency” and fall into ever-wealthier corporate hands. I certainly can’t claim I know the solution to all this - decentralized media has issues that need addressing. But I don’t think that “double down on centralized media” is part of it. Centralized media is pretty well-understood as a primary tool of fascism - every tyrannical government in basically all of human history has been built upon it. I also don’t think “this org is too big to fail” has ever done much good for working people - just the wealthy. It’s preserved some 401Ks, but we also need to talk about the issues with that system, which is getting a bit far off topic. Anyway, hope you don’t deem this “casual and lazy.” Curious about your response. PS: It would be helpful to avoid using terms like “beltway media” that aren’t clearly defined in dictionaries, or universally understood. Instead, say “media from the DC metro area.”
specialist 1y ago
> smaller local media orgs have been eaten up by massive corporations 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-print https://tubitv.com/movies/682467/fit-to-print https://fawesome.tv/movies/10568236/fit-to-print https://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.

burnt-resistor 1y ago

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.

ethbr1 1y ago
This is a casual and lazy take. 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.
- pseudocomposer 1y ago
  > 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). Certainly, we need reporters who have physical access to people in Washington, DC. But why do you think the way beltway media operates today is optimal? I’d argue it’s actually quite pathological. I think local reporters, from any county of any state, should be able to routinely go to and report from DC. This would probably have to be paid for with some combination of state, federal, and local taxes (and hopefully concessions from the federal government to let smaller towns/cities in). Yes, there would be “inefficiencies,” but of course the tradeoff is we have robust, trustworthy media. In today’s news media market, only reporters working for big corporations can even afford to stay in and report from DC. In fact… that’s exactly the problem. These people really are deeply disconnected from beltway outsiders (99% of our population). As a member of the general public capable of understanding even elementary school playground social dynamics, you’d honestly have to be pretty braindead to trust what comes out of a “news” system that operates this way. Finally let’s address your assertion (without evidence or anecdotes) that “decentralized smaller media holding powerful entities to account hasn’t shown us that it works better.” Um, are you familiar with the American Revolution? Or French Revolution? Or Bolshevik? Do you think these people were recruiting, marketing, and communicating through centralized news channels? And to go only just a bit further back… you do realize that the printing press has barely been around for a fraction of human history, right? We also didn’t have the internet in the past. The internet has basically been a death blow for the actual profitability of the big corporate news media orgs that we allowed to form from the 1870s-1980s. This handful of news mega-corporations we had then just can’t operate in a way any American would describe as “ethical,” and also earn a profit, in a world where the internet exists. Since then, the economic system that created them has pushed them to “consolidate for efficiency” and fall into ever-wealthier corporate hands. I certainly can’t claim I know the solution to all this - decentralized media has issues that need addressing. But I don’t think that “double down on centralized media” is part of it. Centralized media is pretty well-understood as a primary tool of fascism - every tyrannical government in basically all of human history has been built upon it. I also don’t think “this org is too big to fail” has ever done much good for working people - just the wealthy. It’s preserved some 401Ks, but we also need to talk about the issues with that system, which is getting a bit far off topic. Anyway, hope you don’t deem this “casual and lazy.” Curious about your response. PS: It would be helpful to avoid using terms like “beltway media” that aren’t clearly defined in dictionaries, or universally understood. Instead, say “media from the DC metro area.”

specialist 1y ago

> smaller local media orgs have been eaten up by massive corporations 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-print https://tubitv.com/movies/682467/fit-to-print https://fawesome.tv/movies/10568236/fit-to-print https://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.