I still think this feels like a bit of perspective bias by two people who got burned by mainstream media (one wrongly, and one who has had a lot of trouble operating in a traditional media structure). While candidates, especially those with better known brands, may seek out more niche audiences through alternative media like sub stacks and podcasts, I just don’t think the MSM is going away. Your analysis is great and all, but you simply cannot do the on the ground reporting that a traditional outlet can. People who view your content, and similar outlets are people who are already consuming political news. The candidates at the next Iowa caucuses, or whatever aren’t going to be seeking coverage in podcasts. They will still be looking for traditional free media coverage that reaches a broader audience. Cult/niche followings are nice, but ask Bernie Sanders if a cult following and $5 wins you more than a cup of coffee at a Starbucks.
Sorry, but, traditional media and on the ground reporting is still the best way — at least early — to build support. That is especially true for congressional candidates geographically targeting their voter audience. Oneness a major national candidate secures the nomination and dials in the base, then alternative media will become more important tactically in targeting undecided groups or other demographics, but until then, your reach just isn’t that big. Fox got 7 million viewers for the .harris interview with Brett Baier. Sorry, but that is more reach to likely voters than any sub stack or podcast.
There is a role for the new news media, but it is mostly targeted at people already looking to consume news. For some of the other podcasts and such that only focus on politics occasionally or every 2-4 years, they are a bank shot for candidates to get in front of their audiences, which are national and demographically targeted, but not necessarily likely voters or in battleground states.
I get your arguments about the financing model for mainstream journalism, but we definitely will be a less informed society if it is all a Balkanized pool of micro audiences with every person getting to choose which hosts’ “facts” they like better.
I'll add another comment - the mainstream media is good for in depth analysis by a team of reporters and support staff, working for days or weeks on a topic. How would that work in the new model, with many independent journalists? Would a group of like minded journalists form a sort of co-op and pool some cash and time to do this?
This was great - thanks. Nice to see your intergenerational similarities, and differences. Maybe you should watch the election together and live stream it.
I'm 78 so definitely grew up with The Mainstream Media - I even delivered the Globe and Mail as a kid in Toronto. I've dabbled in various media, with Facebook and Twitter/X and Flickr and a blog and streaming my gaming to Twitch and Youtube. Last year I started a Substack. Cautiously, because what if people don't like me? ;-)
I agree that mainstream media is fading for politicians. In Canada too, political announcements are via Twitter/X and YouTube live streams. Then they can control the timing and content. Just not the distribution, as that's via the algorithms of advertising. I follow mainstream news, via our public CBC. Luckily it's still supported by tax dollars, so can afford to do some in depth reporting. And it has frequent discussion panels, chosen not just to ensure both-side-ism but for their different views. A Federal election will be soon, and the likely winner, a Conservative that specialises in snappy lines and bumper sticker politics. has vowed to defund the CBC. He bemoans his perception of a left leaning bias, but I think that is just a consequence of a bias toward science and logic and rationality and critical thinking. Which rules out a chunk of the right wing.
But that's for another rant, I still have today's podcast to do.
Enjoyed this. Times have changed and the way people get there news has evolved. Grew up with an “evening” newspaper, watching local 6:00 news followed by Walter Cronkite, the “good old days”. Never thought we wouldn’t have a landline phone, either. Senior citizens who are needing to adapt to change and like a lot of the various ways.
When I was working for Turner Broadcasting, one of the journalists at CNN was fired because she basically said “I’m sorry for your loss” on Twitter when a politician in Iran died (I don’t remember who). She was accused of showing bias simply by making a very sympathetic, and human, statement. I was told about the circumstances of her firing by another CNN journalist whom I knew well. That journalist told me that all of the journalists had been warned about
I really enjoyed the conversation with Taylor. Here's to many more!
I still think this feels like a bit of perspective bias by two people who got burned by mainstream media (one wrongly, and one who has had a lot of trouble operating in a traditional media structure). While candidates, especially those with better known brands, may seek out more niche audiences through alternative media like sub stacks and podcasts, I just don’t think the MSM is going away. Your analysis is great and all, but you simply cannot do the on the ground reporting that a traditional outlet can. People who view your content, and similar outlets are people who are already consuming political news. The candidates at the next Iowa caucuses, or whatever aren’t going to be seeking coverage in podcasts. They will still be looking for traditional free media coverage that reaches a broader audience. Cult/niche followings are nice, but ask Bernie Sanders if a cult following and $5 wins you more than a cup of coffee at a Starbucks.
Sorry, but, traditional media and on the ground reporting is still the best way — at least early — to build support. That is especially true for congressional candidates geographically targeting their voter audience. Oneness a major national candidate secures the nomination and dials in the base, then alternative media will become more important tactically in targeting undecided groups or other demographics, but until then, your reach just isn’t that big. Fox got 7 million viewers for the .harris interview with Brett Baier. Sorry, but that is more reach to likely voters than any sub stack or podcast.
There is a role for the new news media, but it is mostly targeted at people already looking to consume news. For some of the other podcasts and such that only focus on politics occasionally or every 2-4 years, they are a bank shot for candidates to get in front of their audiences, which are national and demographically targeted, but not necessarily likely voters or in battleground states.
I get your arguments about the financing model for mainstream journalism, but we definitely will be a less informed society if it is all a Balkanized pool of micro audiences with every person getting to choose which hosts’ “facts” they like better.
I'll add another comment - the mainstream media is good for in depth analysis by a team of reporters and support staff, working for days or weeks on a topic. How would that work in the new model, with many independent journalists? Would a group of like minded journalists form a sort of co-op and pool some cash and time to do this?
Lots to chew on here for a local media vet, one since even before 1995.
my pleasure! looking forward to listening to the beginning.
This was great - thanks. Nice to see your intergenerational similarities, and differences. Maybe you should watch the election together and live stream it.
I'm 78 so definitely grew up with The Mainstream Media - I even delivered the Globe and Mail as a kid in Toronto. I've dabbled in various media, with Facebook and Twitter/X and Flickr and a blog and streaming my gaming to Twitch and Youtube. Last year I started a Substack. Cautiously, because what if people don't like me? ;-)
I agree that mainstream media is fading for politicians. In Canada too, political announcements are via Twitter/X and YouTube live streams. Then they can control the timing and content. Just not the distribution, as that's via the algorithms of advertising. I follow mainstream news, via our public CBC. Luckily it's still supported by tax dollars, so can afford to do some in depth reporting. And it has frequent discussion panels, chosen not just to ensure both-side-ism but for their different views. A Federal election will be soon, and the likely winner, a Conservative that specialises in snappy lines and bumper sticker politics. has vowed to defund the CBC. He bemoans his perception of a left leaning bias, but I think that is just a consequence of a bias toward science and logic and rationality and critical thinking. Which rules out a chunk of the right wing.
But that's for another rant, I still have today's podcast to do.
Enjoyed this. Times have changed and the way people get there news has evolved. Grew up with an “evening” newspaper, watching local 6:00 news followed by Walter Cronkite, the “good old days”. Never thought we wouldn’t have a landline phone, either. Senior citizens who are needing to adapt to change and like a lot of the various ways.
Thanks Chris. I’m saving this (At least the audio portion) for a longish drive later.
When I was working for Turner Broadcasting, one of the journalists at CNN was fired because she basically said “I’m sorry for your loss” on Twitter when a politician in Iran died (I don’t remember who). She was accused of showing bias simply by making a very sympathetic, and human, statement. I was told about the circumstances of her firing by another CNN journalist whom I knew well. That journalist told me that all of the journalists had been warned about
About making any comments that could be construed as being favorable to one party or another, regardless of the situation.
❤️❤️❤️