Please download the audio file using the link provided: https://d2h6a3ly6ooodw.cloudfront.net/reasontv_audio_8307936.mp3. The content examines the 2024 presidential campaign and the dynamics between the media and political figures. It discusses an interview between Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and Stephanie Ruhle from MSNBC, highlighting the evolving role of journalists in politics. The text questions the shift from adversarial to instrumental journalism and the impact on electoral outcomes. It critiques the soft nature of the interview and the absence of tough questions, contrasting it with past journalistic practices that prioritized challenging inquiries. The analysis delves into the modern media landscape’s perceived partisanship and explores differing perspectives on the industry’s evolving political stance.
The decline of traditional journalism is a significant issue as the media landscape undergoes massive changes. Mainstream reporters and their opponents are struggling to come to terms with the fact that the media’s influence and importance have diminished. Editorial endorsements are no longer as impactful, and political discussions are now happening in a vastly different informational environment than in the past. This shift has led to politicians adapting to new power dynamics and market incentives that are less focused on truth-seeking.
Recent events, such as Hurricane Helene, have highlighted how misinformation can spread rapidly in the current media climate. False claims made by public figures, such as Elon Musk, North Carolina’s lieutenant governor Mark Robinson, and Donald Trump, can have damaging consequences during crises. These unfounded statements only serve to hinder response efforts and fuel division.
The decline in local media has also had a significant impact on public discourse, with some attributing the deterioration to social media platforms and their algorithms that prioritize sensationalism over accuracy. This has allowed bad actors to spread misinformation and erode trust in society, posing a threat to democracy and civil society.
While some blame the media’s struggles on elites and others point to social media platforms, the complex factors driving this decline suggest deeper underlying issues. The collapse of traditional media outlets like Vice News, coupled with the relentless spread of misinformation, requires a more nuanced understanding of the challenges facing the industry. It is crucial for society to address these issues and work towards rebuilding trust and promoting accurate information in the media landscape.
The proudly Trump-supporting Santa Barbara News-Press also faced challenges. There are many ways to struggle financially without compromising one’s values. For years, newspapers stood as the key players in journalism, boasting substantial editorial content, large newsrooms, and significant profits compared to other media platforms like magazines, books, broadcasts, newsletters, and websites. In the peak year of 1990, American newspapers had nearly half a million employees, a circulation exceeding 60 million, and profit margins consistently above 20%. However, the decline started post-Cold War, with newspaper advertising revenue peaking near $50 billion annually before plummeting by 75%.
Today, combined newspaper circulation has dwindled to 20 million, ad revenue barely surpasses $10 billion, and employment numbers are well below 100,000. Weekly newspapers are disappearing at a rate of two per week, and certain types, such as alternative weeklies, are nearly extinct. The number of daily newspapers has decreased from 1,600 in 1990 to 1,200, with the survivors struggling to maintain their former glory.
For instance, the Los Angeles Times, once a robust publication with a massive circulation of 1.2 million and substantial profits, now publishes a few ad-free pages, a circulation of 118,000, a newsroom of 385, and an annual loss of $30-40 million. The decline of such influential newspapers has left a significant void in local news coverage, with readers shifting to digital platforms for their information needs. Even newspapers that adapted to online publishing couldn’t recreate their previous success.
As local newsrooms shrank, few alternatives emerged to fill the void, and the digital landscape became dominated by national players based mainly in major cities. In 2017, as digital media overtook print, a study by Politico Magazine revealed that the journalism workforce was increasingly concentrated in a political and geographic bubble. The research showed that many journalists worked in counties that heavily favored Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, highlighting the growing disconnect between the media and a significant portion of the population.
Shafer and Doherty discovered that the majority of the population growth seen on the X-shaped graphs was concentrated along the coasts, with 73 percent residing in either the Boston-New York-Washington-Richmond corridor or the West Coast crescent from Seattle to San Diego through Phoenix. They also found 5 percent of the population growth in the greater Chicago area. This shift was not just a change in location but also a significant shift in sociopolitical dynamics, representing a radical transformation.
The typical 25-year-old journalist was no longer a local cub reporter engaged with and accountable to their community. Instead, they were often a graduate school graduate residing in Brooklyn, critiquing distant political figures from a safe distance. As the country underwent a geographic sorting based on political beliefs and distancing from community institutions like churches, sports leagues, and social clubs, journalism focused more on national and presidential politics, predominantly from liberal neighborhoods in major cities.
This reorientation accelerated the industry’s existing political leanings. The American Journalist survey, conducted every ten years, showed a stark increase in Democratic self-identification among reporters over the years. In 2002, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans surveyed was 2:1, which became 4:1 in 2013 and then a staggering 11:1 by 2022. This trend mirrored academia—a supposedly nonpartisan sector where conservatives were increasingly rare.
The newer generation of journalists, coming of age during the Trump era, led significant changes in the profession. This included a resurgence in unionization, the establishment of diversity and inclusion departments, and a vocal opposition to providing a platform to individuals with controversial views or ‘both-sidesism’. There was also a growing support among journalists for government intervention against alleged misinformation, even if it meant disregarding the First Amendment.
These shifts in journalistic norms gave rise to incidents ranging from authoritarian reactions to unintentionally humorous situations. For instance, following the George Floyd incident in 2020, numerous professionals in the knowledge economy faced repercussions for not showing sufficient support in combating systemic racism. This led to prominent figures moving to independent platforms like Substack and YouTube, bringing their audiences and financial support with them. Recent events, such as internal conflicts at CBS over interviews, further highlighted the evolving landscape of journalism and media practices.
The notion that the left and the right are immune to the same pathologies is false. The political right also suffers from significant informational issues of its own. Tucker Carlson, once a respected journalist, has succumbed to the pitfalls of right-wing media. He has shifted from skepticism of facts to promoting unfounded conspiracy theories, showcasing how right-wing populism can distort media literacy.
In 2009, as he was launching The Daily Caller, Carlson was criticized at the Conservative Political Action Conference for praising The New York Times. He emphasized the importance of delivering accurate news and warned against creating biased news organizations. However, The Daily Caller eventually resembled more of a tabloid than a reputable news source, contradicting Carlson’s initial principles.
Instead of prioritizing accuracy, Carlson has chosen to challenge journalistic consensus without substantial evidence to support his claims. He has accused the media of being a tool of control for a select few and has embraced contrarian views without due diligence. This approach has led to the dissemination of false information and unreliable narratives, exemplified by his baseless claim about FBI involvement in the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021.
Tucker Carlson’s descent into promoting unfounded theories underscores the dangers of abandoning journalistic integrity in favor of sensationalism and conspiracy.
The former director of Voice of America during Ronald Reagan’s administration caused quite a stir when he toured a lavish Moscow supermarket and expressed his surprise and frustration with U.S. leaders for demonizing Russia while the grocery prices were incredibly low. In a separate incident, TV host Carlson praised podcaster Darryl Cooper as the most honest historian in America, despite the fact that Cooper had not published any historical works. Some conservative journalists criticized this endorsement, but key Republicans in national politics seemed unfazed and continued their support for Carlson. This trend continued with figures like Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts and Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance appearing on Carlson’s show. Donald Trump also campaigned with Carlson multiple times, emphasizing his disregard for traditional political norms and media gatekeeping. Trump’s ability to weather controversies and still maintain support from his base highlighted the shifting dynamics of political influence, emphasizing the power of political consumers over media producers. However, Trump’s disregard for established norms has made it challenging for his supporters to effectively criticize Democrats using similar tactics. Additionally, a recent incident involving accusations of plagiarism against Kamala Harris in her book “Smart on Crime” generated significant attention, with conservative activist Christopher Rufo highlighting several instances of alleged plagiarism. The media’s handling of the story, particularly The New York Times’ coverage, drew criticism for downplaying the seriousness of the accusations and attempting to portray Rufo in a negative light.
Melissa Chen, co-founder of Borders, humorously noted that in 1988, plagiarism could end presidential campaigns, recalling Joe Biden’s vanquished campaign. The differences between then and now extend beyond changes in newsroom sympathies. In 1987, when Biden withdrew from the race, the media held significant power. Politicians faced consequences if their behavior or words were deemed unacceptable by most newsrooms. Biden and Gary Hart were pressured out of the 1988 presidential race due to media scrutiny, along with other incidents like the Bernard Shaw-Michael Dukakis encounter. However, the era of Trump has shattered this influence.
Comparing Biden’s plagiarism to Harris’s seems trivial. Biden not only copied passages but also misrepresented biographical details and inflated academic achievements. Despite the scandal being downplayed as ancient history during Obama’s candidacy, it was expected to hinder Biden’s presidential aspirations. Trump’s emergence shifted the focus, with Biden’s fabrications being overshadowed by Trump’s more significant transgressions.
Trump’s controversial business book, co-written with numerous exaggerations and fabrications, pales in comparison to his other scandals. Trump’s strategy was to provoke the elite sensibilities, making attempts to discredit his opponents like Biden with old controversies relatively ineffective.
Rufo’s investigative work may face skepticism from traditional newsrooms due to his one-sided approach. His reluctance to scrutinize Trump or J.D. Vance for plagiarism, along with offering a bounty for an unsubstantiated claim, raises doubts about the integrity of his work. The New York Times’ biased treatment of Rufo’s work reinforces concerns about media bias and partisanship.
The article discusses the changing dynamics in politics and media, highlighting how past scandals may hold less weight in today’s political landscape dominated by sensationalism and polarization.
Since 1972, Gallup has been polling Americans regarding their trust in the mass media, including newspapers, TV, and radio, to report news fully, accurately, and fairly. The most recent results show trust is at an all-time low of 32 percent, matching the low point from 2016. Journalist Matt Taibbi pointed out that the media’s combined distrust level is even higher than Congress, with 39 percent having no trust in reporters and 24 percent having none in politicians. Taibbi highlighted this as a significant issue, emphasizing the lack of trust in media as an extraordinary problem.
Taibbi, a former writer for Rolling Stone, is among the independent journalists who have left traditional media and found success on their own. His Twitter Files series exposed a system of government pressure on social media platforms to censor individuals spreading misinformation about various topics. The White House, supported by some anti-“platforming” journalists, intensified efforts to combat misinformation in 2021, leading to conflicts with platforms like Spotify over content removal.
Despite pressure from the White House and public figures, Spotify largely resisted censorship demands, leading to legal battles and Supreme Court decisions that were unsatisfactory to free speech advocates. Substack, a platform hosting many independent journalists, faced attempts to tarnish its reputation but has persevered against these attacks. The establishment’s resistance against independent voices appears to be weakening, especially evident in the dynamics of the most recent presidential campaign.
Trump and Vance embraced appearances on Joe Rogan’s show, while Harris faced criticism for her handling of media interactions. The media’s inconsistent coverage, exemplified by 60 Minutes’ handling of Harris’s remarks on Israel, further underscored the challenges facing traditional media outlets.
The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today all made a last-minute decision to refrain from endorsing a presidential candidate, a move that sparked criticism within the journalism community over concerns of preemptively yielding to an incoming authoritarian figure. Following Trump’s resounding victory, a New York Times subheading cautioned that the nation was teetering on the brink of an unprecedented authoritarian style of governance in its 248-year history. Despite the apparent decline in the influence of traditional establishments, there remains some remaining power within these entities, not in terms of audience attraction, but rather in their perceived alignment with governmental authorities.
During the Rally to Rescue the Republic in Washington, D.C., on September 29, journalist Taibbi forewarned about the erosion of First Amendment rights, asserting that the battle had already been lost to state censorship, a reality that had already taken hold in many Western nations. Taibbi highlighted the imposition of the Digital Services Act by European allies, compelling online platforms to enforce decisions made by state-appointed content reviewers known as ‘trusted flaggers.’ The pervasive enforcement efforts by a myriad of agencies mirror the stringent regulations introduced in Europe, indicating a concerning trend towards stifling free expression.
While there have been attempts to push back against the encroaching censorship-industrial complex, merely opposing this system may not be adequate to foster a healthier informational landscape. The presence of individuals like Jack Posobiec and Lara Logan at the Rally to Rescue the Republic underscores the complexity of advocating for free speech while navigating the dissemination of unfounded conspiracy theories and extremist views. The unbundling of traditional news sources has empowered consumers to tailor their information intake based on personal preferences, challenging media outlets to adapt to evolving consumption patterns by prioritizing audience engagement and technological innovations.
The evolving landscape of political information consumption necessitates a proactive stance from both media outlets and consumers. Legacy media organizations must uphold standards of accuracy and accountability to retain credibility in a crowded information ecosystem, while consumers play a pivotal role in demanding transparency and reliability from their chosen sources. The symbiotic relationship between media providers and their audiences will ultimately shape the future of journalism and political discourse, underscoring the importance of active engagement in shaping a more informed and responsible media environment.
