Chris, I appreciate what you do, but I have had a nagging question about the shrinking of MSM: how do you or any independent journalist reliably get the facts of a story that happens somewhere other than locally? In other words, even if we can rely on independent journalists to give us their honest take on events, they have to rely on some outside source for the facts—those will almost always come second hand. Without functional news outlets still doing this basic work around the world, everything that follows is built on a house of cards. Without the resources of MSM outlets that traditionally have had news desks in different regions, how do we know we’re even getting the basics right when reporting a story, let alone when subsequently interpreting its meaning?
The real problem is that many misconstrue opinion as hard news. The vast majority of alternative media is opinion driven, all in the pursuit of endless content, clicks, and revenue.
Without MSM feeding the hard news beast, the internet will get even wilder as, without hard news, content creators will continue to descend into their narcissistic self reinforcing media bubbles. The end result will be the mediascape itself transforms into various duplicates of Musk's X, populated with talking heads screaming at each other.
Critical thinking and verification of facts will be of the utmost importance going forward. No one source will be the one answer. Thoughtful consumption of information is essential. Chris, I like to read you because I don’t always agree with you. These days, echo chambers are dangerous. Looking at news from different sources and perspectives puts a more three-dimensional face on information.
I find Chris’s chart of “Americans’ Trust in Mass Media, 1972-2024”, incomplete to the point of being misleading.
In the same Gallup link Chris provides, there is a similar chart broken down by political party.
The results are stunning and tell a more complete, accurate story.
Although Democrat’s trust has trended down since 1972, it went off a cliff with Republicans.
Not surprisingly, the volatility started right when the Newt/Rush cabal took over the GOP and Fox “News” hit cable in the late 90’s.
1972 saw a difference in trust between Dems and GOP of 6%….74% Dem, 68% GOP. In 2024 that spread became a vast canyon of 42%…a whopping 5X more.
The steady decline was most pronounced on the GOP side sliding 27 points from 1972 to 1997. Dems trust slid close to a third less….down only 10 points from 74% to 64%.
Interesting is the spike of trust with Dems and mistrust with GOP during 2016, when the anti-media demagogue Donald Trump started his jahid against ANY “media” that did not kiss his orange ass and pimp his pathological lying.
The Dems trust started to slip in 2023, just as the Trump campaign was getting in full throated attack mode.
2022 Dem trust was at 70%, while GOP already tanked at 14%.
A little more accurate, comprehensive analysis might be in order instead of lazy generalizations that avoid the elephant (pun intended) the room.
It is a 2 way street. Consider today in New Orleans.
I don't know the female FBI agent who made the statement that the attack was not a terror attack.
I don't know her background, her experience, her past positions and assignments, her education or the color of her cat.
But I do know that all of those counter-media outlets are just tearing her apart.
"DEI HIRE!" "SHE'S HIDING THE TRUTH!" "OF COURSE THE FBI DOESN'T WANT THE TRUTH OUT THERE" "WHAT IS SHE COVERING UP?" "I BET IF THE GUY WAS A TRUMP SUPPORTER WE WOULD ALREADY KNOW HIS NAME!" "DID THE FBI COVER UP A TRUMP FLAG ON THE BACK OF THE TRUCK?" "THIS IS ALL ON BIDEN, HE LET THE GUY IN THE COUNTRY 4 DAYS AGO!"
This crap plays right into the hands of the homegrown media you are talking about. It's almost as if they are made for each other like a parasite on a host. One thrives in darkness, the other provides the dark space.
One of the pillars of our country is a FREE PRESS. Many times recently I have wondered if the press is really doing all it can to stay in business. It's a circular firing squad many days. "They" complain about how the story is covered and then the government folks give them a big colorful target to aim at.
I don't quite completely buy into the "a link is a link" thinking.
There is something to be said for the concept that a link is tied to an editorial process that ensures that the link is a link to an accurate representation of facts and the truth.
Opinions are great, but they are just someone's interpretation of the facts and truth. There still needs to be accurate, factual and an unopinionated presentation of those facts.
The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc. all provide such editorial services.
Where people seem to go wrong is in their ability to differentiate between the Opinion pages and the news pages.
It's not an entertainment and information ecosystem...at best it's a misinformation and disinformation cesspool...the graphic about where people get their information from is based more on an individual's confirmation bias and not seeking the truth...the lackof critical thinking across the population is going to be the downfall of this country...misinformation and disinformation sells, the truth costs money...
I have been mulling Your advice over and over as I do appreciate your honesty in translating thoughtful ideas for us…. and I am beginning to see your vision of the future more clearly….ps… interestingly I just began an audiobook biography of the Senator
The signs of Joe Biden's decline were evident at least as early as 2019. I saw him at an Iowa Democratic event that summer and it was a BAD night. I blogged about it and months later apologized online about having written that Biden was "losing it."
Now let's start talking more about things like Donald Trump "joking" about serving more than two terms as president. For reference:
Chris, your unique inside-out perspective on this issue is always fascinating and makes me excited to be a part of Substack. Thank you for the article!
Media companies are now bribing the Trump Administration. They don’t deserve to continue as media organizations. Just what nonsense are they printing and why? lol Besides, Millennial chess streamers get more views these days.
Well said! Couple points: You mention Krugman, but not Bari Weiss. She took the leap, and I would argue helped show that this model will work, making it easier for others (you and Krugman) to jump in the pool. Second, you mention system, processes and procedures, then follow with “attempt”. More and more people just don’t believe that the “attempts” are successful. Finally I completely agree with following people you trust. The challenge, people tend to follow people that have similar views…same issue with MSM. Conservatives stick to FOX, liberals CNN AND MSNBC. This has to stop. Not sure how, but failing to do so will make social media no different than MSM.
Great article Chris. What concerns me is that attempting to stay reasonably informed is costly. There are so many on Substack and/or TV streaming I’d like to support but money for subscriptions is limited for many of us. Analytical content in the form of various guest interviews could help MSM stay competitive at a lower cost to the public. But my question is, with the loss of many seasoned reporters and commentators to Substack and others, what can the MSM do to engage audiences? I personally believe the ability readers have to personally engage in the exchange of views, individually participate in interviews and news stories, have questions answered by content creators themselves and suggest what items of interest should be covered is the key advantage. Newspapers and broadcast media have models that don’t easily lend themselves to such operations. Is it realistic to expect many traditional news outlets to survive?
Chris, I appreciate what you do, but I have had a nagging question about the shrinking of MSM: how do you or any independent journalist reliably get the facts of a story that happens somewhere other than locally? In other words, even if we can rely on independent journalists to give us their honest take on events, they have to rely on some outside source for the facts—those will almost always come second hand. Without functional news outlets still doing this basic work around the world, everything that follows is built on a house of cards. Without the resources of MSM outlets that traditionally have had news desks in different regions, how do we know we’re even getting the basics right when reporting a story, let alone when subsequently interpreting its meaning?
This is 1000% right. And the problem is this: News gathering is HUGELY expensive and very hard to monetize.
Who is doing the fact-gathering now? AP? Reuters?
The real problem is that many misconstrue opinion as hard news. The vast majority of alternative media is opinion driven, all in the pursuit of endless content, clicks, and revenue.
Without MSM feeding the hard news beast, the internet will get even wilder as, without hard news, content creators will continue to descend into their narcissistic self reinforcing media bubbles. The end result will be the mediascape itself transforms into various duplicates of Musk's X, populated with talking heads screaming at each other.
Critical thinking and verification of facts will be of the utmost importance going forward. No one source will be the one answer. Thoughtful consumption of information is essential. Chris, I like to read you because I don’t always agree with you. These days, echo chambers are dangerous. Looking at news from different sources and perspectives puts a more three-dimensional face on information.
I find Chris’s chart of “Americans’ Trust in Mass Media, 1972-2024”, incomplete to the point of being misleading.
In the same Gallup link Chris provides, there is a similar chart broken down by political party.
The results are stunning and tell a more complete, accurate story.
Although Democrat’s trust has trended down since 1972, it went off a cliff with Republicans.
Not surprisingly, the volatility started right when the Newt/Rush cabal took over the GOP and Fox “News” hit cable in the late 90’s.
1972 saw a difference in trust between Dems and GOP of 6%….74% Dem, 68% GOP. In 2024 that spread became a vast canyon of 42%…a whopping 5X more.
The steady decline was most pronounced on the GOP side sliding 27 points from 1972 to 1997. Dems trust slid close to a third less….down only 10 points from 74% to 64%.
Interesting is the spike of trust with Dems and mistrust with GOP during 2016, when the anti-media demagogue Donald Trump started his jahid against ANY “media” that did not kiss his orange ass and pimp his pathological lying.
The Dems trust started to slip in 2023, just as the Trump campaign was getting in full throated attack mode.
2022 Dem trust was at 70%, while GOP already tanked at 14%.
A little more accurate, comprehensive analysis might be in order instead of lazy generalizations that avoid the elephant (pun intended) the room.
This is mostly a partisan “distrust”.
It is a 2 way street. Consider today in New Orleans.
I don't know the female FBI agent who made the statement that the attack was not a terror attack.
I don't know her background, her experience, her past positions and assignments, her education or the color of her cat.
But I do know that all of those counter-media outlets are just tearing her apart.
"DEI HIRE!" "SHE'S HIDING THE TRUTH!" "OF COURSE THE FBI DOESN'T WANT THE TRUTH OUT THERE" "WHAT IS SHE COVERING UP?" "I BET IF THE GUY WAS A TRUMP SUPPORTER WE WOULD ALREADY KNOW HIS NAME!" "DID THE FBI COVER UP A TRUMP FLAG ON THE BACK OF THE TRUCK?" "THIS IS ALL ON BIDEN, HE LET THE GUY IN THE COUNTRY 4 DAYS AGO!"
This crap plays right into the hands of the homegrown media you are talking about. It's almost as if they are made for each other like a parasite on a host. One thrives in darkness, the other provides the dark space.
One of the pillars of our country is a FREE PRESS. Many times recently I have wondered if the press is really doing all it can to stay in business. It's a circular firing squad many days. "They" complain about how the story is covered and then the government folks give them a big colorful target to aim at.
America is really in trouble.
Thank you Chris for being an independent news source. I value your opinions and am glad that you are here. Happy New Year.
And Chris stands out because he shares lots of data, often in useful graphs and tables.
I don't quite completely buy into the "a link is a link" thinking.
There is something to be said for the concept that a link is tied to an editorial process that ensures that the link is a link to an accurate representation of facts and the truth.
Opinions are great, but they are just someone's interpretation of the facts and truth. There still needs to be accurate, factual and an unopinionated presentation of those facts.
The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc. all provide such editorial services.
Where people seem to go wrong is in their ability to differentiate between the Opinion pages and the news pages.
It's not an entertainment and information ecosystem...at best it's a misinformation and disinformation cesspool...the graphic about where people get their information from is based more on an individual's confirmation bias and not seeking the truth...the lackof critical thinking across the population is going to be the downfall of this country...misinformation and disinformation sells, the truth costs money...
Happy New Year, Chris! I am glad you are going to be still here!
I have been mulling Your advice over and over as I do appreciate your honesty in translating thoughtful ideas for us…. and I am beginning to see your vision of the future more clearly….ps… interestingly I just began an audiobook biography of the Senator
The signs of Joe Biden's decline were evident at least as early as 2019. I saw him at an Iowa Democratic event that summer and it was a BAD night. I blogged about it and months later apologized online about having written that Biden was "losing it."
Now let's start talking more about things like Donald Trump "joking" about serving more than two terms as president. For reference:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/18/politics/donald-trump-term-limit/index.html
Chris, your unique inside-out perspective on this issue is always fascinating and makes me excited to be a part of Substack. Thank you for the article!
Media companies are now bribing the Trump Administration. They don’t deserve to continue as media organizations. Just what nonsense are they printing and why? lol Besides, Millennial chess streamers get more views these days.
Well said! Couple points: You mention Krugman, but not Bari Weiss. She took the leap, and I would argue helped show that this model will work, making it easier for others (you and Krugman) to jump in the pool. Second, you mention system, processes and procedures, then follow with “attempt”. More and more people just don’t believe that the “attempts” are successful. Finally I completely agree with following people you trust. The challenge, people tend to follow people that have similar views…same issue with MSM. Conservatives stick to FOX, liberals CNN AND MSNBC. This has to stop. Not sure how, but failing to do so will make social media no different than MSM.
Yes we can ♥️
Great article Chris. What concerns me is that attempting to stay reasonably informed is costly. There are so many on Substack and/or TV streaming I’d like to support but money for subscriptions is limited for many of us. Analytical content in the form of various guest interviews could help MSM stay competitive at a lower cost to the public. But my question is, with the loss of many seasoned reporters and commentators to Substack and others, what can the MSM do to engage audiences? I personally believe the ability readers have to personally engage in the exchange of views, individually participate in interviews and news stories, have questions answered by content creators themselves and suggest what items of interest should be covered is the key advantage. Newspapers and broadcast media have models that don’t easily lend themselves to such operations. Is it realistic to expect many traditional news outlets to survive?