> 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

> 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 You’re ignoring how connected they can be to beltway insiders. Relationships like that are built counterparty trust. Few people are willing to risk their job or negative career repercussions to give information to a stranger, who may or may not have the skills to do anything with it. The trust is equal parts {I trust that you will keep your word (whether source confidentiality, on/off record, etc)} and {I trust your competence and work ethic as a reporter}. > I certainly can’t claim I know the solution to all this - decentralized media has issues that need addressing. In order to be convinced of the superiority of decentralized news media, I’d want a compelling argument that it’s (a) capable and competent, (b) financially self-sustainable, and (c) more resistant to authoritarianism than traditional centralized media. I’d be skeptical of all those claims. We all imagine the plucky citizen-journalist, but for every one of those (driven by their own morals more than financial considerations!), I find it hard to believe there’s not a tide of dark money astroturf that’s virtually indistinguishable. No big-media doesn’t automatically mean Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It means Paulie Podcast gets $250/month in “advertising” buy from someone who wants to put a particular take out in the infosphere. > Anyway, hope you don’t deem this “casual and lazy.” Nope. I appreciate the substantive disagreement!