Over at New York, John Herrman pulls no punches describing the American news business:
American news is a smoldering wasteland....Cable news is in trouble, the twin threats of streaming and social-media video having sapped it of relevance....Print media is simply disappearing in much of the country, and where it still exists, it is in barely controlled decline.....Digital news is suffering a brutal downturn of its own....Publications savvy or lucky enough to have built subscription businesses — most notable among them the New York Times — have effectively traded broad influence and participation in the public discourse for survival behind ever taller paywalls, where smaller numbers of devoted subscribers consume news that they effectively cannot share. News organizations still vying for pure scale must contend with a Facebook that has thoroughly deprioritized news in its feeds, a chaotic Twitter owned by an ideologue, and a Google that’s threatening to replace its top results with content generated by AI.
I'd like to offer two different perspectives on this. The first is from the perspective of journalists themselves, where Herrman is 100% correct:
This is carnage. Since 2000 jobs in newspapers have plummeted 80%. Total journalism jobs have declined 63%. "Smoldering wasteland" is not too harsh a description.
But there's another perspective: that of the reader of news. Just for lulz, suppose you get your news from the following sources:
- New York Times
- Wall Street Journal
- A network nightly news broadcast
- The Economist
- Reuters/AP websites
- Daily Mail (for the gossip)
- BBC
- Politico
Whatever you think of these news sources individually, they're basically all healthy and reliable. Some are free, some are partially free, and some are behind strict paywalls. But that's still better than pre-internet, when you would have been required to pay for nearly all of them and couldn't easily share any of them since there was no sharing medium available.
You don't have to rely on CNN or BuzzFeed or Facebook or Vice. If you want, you can get your news from much the same places as you did 20 years ago, except more cheaply and more conveniently.
A hundred years ago, my great-grandfather had access to one news source (he ran the only newspaper in town). Twenty or 30 years ago, most of us effectively had access to three or four. Today we have effective—not just theoretical—access to far more than that.
Herrman's broadside against the news biz was motivated by his belief that its current parlous state will have terrible impacts on politics:
It seems not only possible but likely that this will be the first modern election in the United States without a minimum viable media: a placeless race, in which voters and candidates can and will, despite or maybe because of a glut of fragmented content, ignore the news.
I dunno about that. Here's the news that people say they actually consume:
This isn't an entirely pretty picture. Two of the most popular news sources are, at best, semi-reliable, although it's worth noting that social media news feeds mostly point to conventional news sources, not TikTok videos or Twitter disinformation.
There's no question that the news industry has problems. In particular, local news, no matter how you spin it, is all but gone. Small digital outlets, especially those without a niche, struggle constantly. Jobs in journalism have cratered. And yet, through all that, readers have more good options today than ever in history, and the evidence shows that they largely take advantage of that. There's plenty of crap around the edges that demands constant vigilance, but core news continues to putter along smoothly, providing excellent coverage at a reasonable price. It's hard to see how we could ask for much more.
I make $100h while I’m courageous to the most distant corners of the planet. Last week I worked on my PC in Rome, Monti Carlo at the long final in Paris. This week I’m back inside the USA. All I do fundamental errands from this one cool area see it. For more information,
Click on the link below… https://GetDreamJobs1.blogspot.com
Beautiful, not even a response to a comment.
She's courageous to the most distant corners of the planet.
Loved you in Blade Runner 2049, "Eve," but this is your finest achievement yet.
How did you manage to find corners on a sphere, and be courageous to them? Bravo!
I am on team disaster because I think access to a wider range of national news is a poor substitute for the loss of local news.
1) National news won't cover meaningful day-to-day state and local government matters and studies show direct effects on corrupt behavior due to that lack of oversight.
2) Local news does a better job of connecting to audiences that may not trust most of the traditional national sources. That's no panacea but I'll take an actual journalist doing a lot of fluff and if it bleeds it leads coverage over Sinclair and Fox's national propaganda effort.
Short version, journalistic oversight and audience trust building is work, and the massive decline in jobs means that work is no longer being done.
The disappearance of local news has been a disaster for fans of good governance, voting rights and democracy in general. All too often Sinclair owned stations will curate "local" stories from distant places from the local station in service to the outrage Wurlitzer.
Live in NY Metro area and do t really see the demise of local news. Still 4 daily papers ( I get 3 of them), still decent local papers “cuz Village News” and local news on the tube. I never watched local news after watching upstate- fires aren’t that interesting. Btw, I do t use Social media at all. Also now I get the WAPO. Plenty of reliable news sources and Faux ain’t one of them.
It would sure be great to preserve local democracy, but an informed public is essential. Without local news, how are people going to know what their local government is doing, or not doing? And it's on a local level that some of the worst, insidious right wing crap takes place.
Ditto on the loss of local news being the big disaster, affecting local democracy e.g. by making it easier for pseudo grass root activists to win school-board and other low-turnout elections.
You forgot the Guardian! A great news source aimed at us vegetarian sandal-wearing lefties.
The death of local news is by far the most dangerous aspect of this. Most people ignore local politics already - without coverage, corruption and grift thrives.
I'm less worried about national coverage - there is still real competition there, even if it is between dueling hugecos.
And the NYT, which I won't give a dime to because it is run by dishonest authoritarian bigots. At least Rupert is honest about what he is.
An imporatnt question about the number of jobs in publishinjg is how of these gone jobs were of content-makers, and how much administrative/production. Less content makers means less content, while less administrative/production does not.
In the 19th century newspapers were all partisan rags, there was really no ideal of objective journalism, and, outside New York, most people only ever saw one or two of them.
I see cable news increasingly less. I click it on, look at it, it's still like that, I turn it off immediately. I only pay more attention to tv news when there's some kind of event occurring. Once a week I might let it play in the background until a commercial comes on.
Most of the time I get news from a variety of online sources, and aggregators like RawStory and Reddit threads.
"Journalism is better than ever!"
This story brought to you by AI.......
Well, here's a bit of bright news: Josh Marshall had a fund drive that raised half a million for Talking Points Memo.
Sadly, few Americans will pay for accurate and timely news and analysis. And media management regard it as a profit center ... and if not, kill it.
"There's plenty of crap around the edges that demands constant vigilance"
This is true if you leave out "around the edges". The crap is central to a lot of people and with cable and social media being the main news sources for most people it is high in volume. Broadcast news is usually pretty shallow.
There is still good journalism if you look for it in the right places, but for a lot of people it is getting drowned by the crap.
Read your local newspaper, compare it to 25 years ago, and get back to me on that, Kevin.
"Whatever you think of these news sources individually, they're basically all healthy and reliable."
Anyone who relied on those news sources would know that:
a) Al Gore is a big fat liar & George W Bush is an authentic West Texas rancher
b) George W Bush is the 21st century equivalent of Winston Churchill plus Lincoln
c) Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction that he is likely to use against the United States very soon
d) Hillary Clinton's email server is worse than anything any politician has ever done
e) Hillary Clinton is way more corrupt than Donald Trump, who is a very successful business man
Such people would never learn that:
a) The economy performs better under Democratic presidents, including Joe Biden
b) Republican tax cuts explode the deficit
c) Without agitating racists and racial tensions, Republicans could not hope to compete in national elections.
So, sure, very healthy, very reliable.
As for local media--ad dollars that would have gone to local papers is now going to social media and search engines. The more local and regional stores/dealerships/banks/etc. lose out to national corporations. the less local ad dollars there will be.
Imagine writing the second sentence in the same paragraph with the first one.
I think libraries still provide various newspapers for interested readers. When I worked near a library, I would visit during lunchtime and read every news magazine in their media section.
The loss of local news means that the likes of Nextdoor and Facebook are filled with people “reporting” stupid stuff causing more Ring cameras to be installed over a fear of breakins and car thefts. No one knows what the local history, landmarks or events are happening celebrating both cultural heritage and small local owned businesses. Main Street USA is lost, downtowns are beholden to chain stores and the local government thinks they are doing a great job because they can point to a ribbon cutting of a Dollar General.
I just did a random search of a seven US smaller metros: Lancaster, PA, Pueblo, CO, Yakima, WA, Knoxville, TN, Grand Rapids, MI, Montpelier, VT and Eureka, CA.
https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/
https://www.chieftain.com/
https://www.yakimaherald.com/
https://www.knoxnews.com/
https://www.mlive.com/grand-rapids-muskegon/
https://www.timesargus.com/
https://www.times-standard.com/
Every single one had an online newspaper or local news site (some more than one) featuring a seemingly rich selection of local news stories. And pretty much all the major US media markets have 3-5 local news broadcasts (NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox).
What is the metric showing local news is so moribund? What's it's based on? I have no doubt salaries for journalists suck these days. But there doesn't seem to be a lack of local news for those who are interested in it. I suspect that much of the issue is that a lot of consumers of news just aren't interested. They've been swept up by the nationalization of our news and politics, and simply choose to follow what goes on in Washington more closely than what goes on at the city council or board of supervisors.
I just did a random search of a seven US smaller metros: Lancaster, PA, Pueblo, CO, Yakima, WA, Knoxville, TN, Grand Rapids, MI, Montpelier, VT and Eureka, CA.
Every single one had an online newspaper or local news site (some more than one) featuring a seemingly rich selection of local news stories. And pretty much all the major US media markets have 3-5 local news broadcasts (NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox).
What is the metric showing local news is so moribund? What's it's based on? I have no doubt salaries for journalists suck these days. But there doesn't seem to be a lack of local news for those who are interested in it. I suspect that much of the issue is that a lot of consumers of news just aren't interested. They've been swept up by the nationalization of our news and politics, and simply choose to follow what goes on in Washington more closely than what goes on at the city council or board of supervisors.
(FWIW I originally posted this comment with links to the news sites, but Kevin's software doesn't appreciate that.)
Local journalism should hold local government and community accountable, not merely publish press releases of actions that represent one point of view on any item. Eg. A story on line striping of a local road, should at best report beyond the road closure and cost, to put in perspective why the road as chosen, what the process was for selecting the contractor, who is the contracor and who will benefit from a clearly marked road, when the decision was made, funded and executed and what if any impacts residents will have as a result of this local mundane road stripping project will have. A bonus to a beat reporter that digs into the history of this same road being striped 5 times while another road nearby has not been stripped and has a high incidence of crashes.
Getting into the details makes it a local news story, otherwise its just glorified stenography.
So in other words nothing solid. Just your opinion that local news was better in the old days? I mean, maybe it was better then, but my memory stretches back to the 1970s, and, from what I can see the reportage is comparably detailed to what it was four decades ago. How would we measure the drop in quality (or volume)?
An increasingly large percentage of the population closely (some would say obsessively) follows national politics. They're sometimes known as "political hobbyists." My suspicion is that, with time a finite resources, people simply aren't following local news as much as they used to—it's being crowded out by national news coverage—especially political coverage.
But lots of good local news is there for the taking if one is interested.
Local news is under a lot of pressure. Small newspapers have been going under. A lot of them relied on local advertising, but now that goes to Facebook and the like. Classified ads, another maintstay, have moved to Craigslits. They were often supported by government requirements that notice of legal actions had to be placed in a newspaper, but this usually leaves a county with just a single paper.
There is no substitute for local news coverage. There's lots of national and international news provided by reporters working for major papers and news outlets like the AP. Local stories require local sources, and they are under stress. I live in a rural county, and we still have our local paper, but it has been downsized over the years. We're less rural than some, so it survives and provides local coverage. Now and then a local story - e.g. that guy who stole a slider and moved someone's house off its foundations - makes it to national coverage, but without the local team, we'd have nothing.
https://localnewsinitiative.northwestern.edu/research/state-of-local-news/report/
P.S. When a local mayor went to a COVID spreading motorcycle rally and brought home infections, that got local and national coverage, but only because we have a local paper.
re "impacts on politics":
The Internet and cable has destroyed traditional, twentieth-century *establishment* gatekeepers:
nightly network news (CBS-Cronkite, NBC-Brinkley)
weekly news magazines (Time, Newsweek, US News &World)
big city newspapers
They had their demerits (e.g. early support for Vietnam War) but they also marginalized political forces that are antagonistic to a working democracy. Those marginalized are no longer so, and we see the results: siloing, and giving a platform to cranks (who formerly were reduced to mimeographing sheets and stapling them to telephone poles in the neighborhood).
re Kevin's "readers have more good options today than ever"
They have more "good options" , but that's a subset of "options", which include outlets like Steve Bannon's War Room. Options means people self-select news sources, with concomitant fracturing of any national consensus on issues of great importance.
Pingback: Israelkritiker*innen verurteilen Bolsonaro und Biden zu einer sozialdemokratischen Therapiestunde mit Scholz' Russlandpolitik - Vermischtes 13.07.2023 - Deliberation Daily