[on-hold music] The loss of trust, I, I used to think it was problem number one, but over time, I've kind of lost focus on that because trust is a very tricky subject.
People trust wildly disinformation sites [chuckles], you know. And so the existence of people's trust in their news sources is not itself a comforting thing.
What we really care about is trust in those organizations that are trustworthy, which is a smaller- Mm. -much smaller percentage, right, of the producers of news, many of which are unreliable.
[upbeat music] Welcome to "The Rebooting Show."
I'm Brian Morrissey. This week, I have a conversation I had with Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at NYU. I find Jay an incisive journalism critic. He's got a great catchphrase for the current election cycle.
"It's about the stakes, not the race." It's his way of urging journalists not to get distracted from their essential public service role.
In this conversation, we discuss the diminished state of the industry, with thousands of jobs lost and a withering of prestige as a profession.
I don't get much enjoyment saying that, but I think it's pretty clear that's the case.
[on-hold music] We also discuss promising nonprofit models and new funding models that subsidize public service journalism since the economic foundations supporting it have mostly crumbled.
We also get into an interesting discussion about whether The New York Times has strayed farther into progressivism since Trump's rise and its shift to a subscription model.
We don't completely agree on that front, but, uh, I hope you enjoy the back and forth. And if you do, please consider becoming a member of the Rebooting's membership program.
I talk all the time about audience-first models, and I believe memberships are critical to them. And for a limited time, I'm trying out giving a little discount to "The Rebooting Show" listeners.
You'll get twenty-five percent off an annual subscription to TRB Pro, which is normally two hundred dollars, but it will be a hundred and fifty dollars.
It gets you full access to all content that I write twice a week and also invites to community events. For instance, many current members are coming to an upcoming event that we are holding called the New Growth Agenda.
It is a private roundtable dinner discussion event in New York City on May eighth. We're gonna be drilling down on specific topics. It's very high level, and it's gonna be great.
So consider joining the Rebooting's membership by visiting the link in the episode description and then just enter TRB Show at checkout for the twenty-five percent off discount.
If you have any questions, just send me a note. My email is bmorrissey@therebooting.com. Now on to my conversation with Jay.
[upbeat music] I think we both got the, the messenger being a flawed model right, and we've seen job losses of three thousand, I believe, in the US journalism job losses last year, and we're already outpacing that this year.
The fate of this industry appears to be, a-and shrinking will stop at some point, to be smaller. I-is that your read? Yeah, that's my read.
And when outfits like the news networks are getting smaller, as CNN and, and its competitors, that's news. So I, I think it's gonna get smaller. We don't know yet what will interfere with that tendency.
And so we're left in this difficult period where the prospects for the news industry as an industry keep getting dimmer, and that leaves this question of journalism, which is not the same thing.
I distinguish between the news industry, the practice of journalism. More and more of the practice of journalism is gonna have to stand on support systems that are not necessarily the media industry.
And at the local level, for example, almost all the interesting action is in nonprofit journalism, which isn't really the industry. It's, it's a different kind of support system.
That is absolutely true, because I think the last time when we spoke, we t-we talked a lot about how news has always needed subsidies, right? And- Right.
I think if you look at The New York Times as being, you know, the one exception, you know, I'm sure you saw the chart of, of- I did...
how much games and recipes are, are driving usage, and that's not necessarily revenue. They, they doubled down on journalism, and they're winning on journalism, and I think that's, I think that's very commendable.
But what's very clear is that for the majority of news, particularly journalism-centric organizations, they're going to need to find these different subsidies.
And I think now is the time to experiment with different models. It can't all be nonprofit, but there, there is definitely a need. Do, do you see any promising models out there that you're tracking specifically?
Not yet, but I think we haven't really driven this point home enough that we need to discover completely new ways of subsidizing public service journalism. The old ways will still be relevant.
It's not like advertising is gonna totally disappear. We know how subscription works.
We know how donations work, and that has helped to an extent, but maybe it's not in the cards, but I, I think we, we just need a deeper, broader, more relentless, and more creative search for possible sources of subsidy.
And I don't know what they are. It's just kind of a...It's kind of an abstract [chuckles] feeling I have. I know that's not very helpful.
W- w- we, we need to break through the traditional forms of subsidy and, and come up with other ones that can begin to sustain public service journalism.
What's happening instead is that forms of journalism that really serve small affluent sectors of the body politic are doing pretty well, like the Punchbowls of the world.
And niche- Mm-hmm... journalism that addresses, you know, very particular interests is doing pretty well, but beyond that, we don't have much. Right. Yeah, that's without a doubt.
I mean, when you think about the Semaphores and, and Puck and, and Punchbowl, and then, you know, the, the ones that came before them, Politico and Axios and others, they're really different.
And I, I, I think it was you who said, like, the, the market to serve, like, the rich and powerful will always be [chuckles] a, a vibrant one. Yes. And that is not necessarily where, where the issue lies.
And even adjacent to that, I, I think y- you had posted something, what Josh Marshall had put up. He put up a very bracing chart about programmatic ad revenue- Mm-hmm...
that got into a bit of a nerdy debate, which I enjoy. I love ad tech debates.
[chuckles] But, you know, I think what, what his chart was showing in, i- is that to have advertising as the main support for most news companies is simply untenable. And, and there's so many- Yes...
different reasons for that, which is basically news doesn't, quote-unquote, perform. Yeah. I've had these dinners, and I've had, on the one side, publishers who are saying, "You're blocking Trump.
You're blocking Ukraine. You're blocking abortion." Like, "You can't... We can't make money off this." And they, the agency people will basically, uh, say, "Well, your stuff doesn't perform, doesn't look good- Mm-hmm...
on the spreadsheet." And ultimately, it's in the marketplace, it, it doesn't have as much value as it costs to produce. And that- Mm-hmm... is an existential problem if you're gonna rely on advertising.
And so I guess the question ends up being, for a couple years it was, well, it's gonna be all subscriptions. Right. Now, that has a lot of flaws, too.
It does, because it appears that not just The New York Times, I put The New York Times in a category with maybe The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, they may be able to continue to make subscription work, but that's a small class by itself.
For everyone else- Yeah...
it's gonna be a contributor to a healthy revenue flow, but it's not actually the solution, even though it does create new revenue and, and it does cost a lot in expertise and time to get it right.
You know, it's not an easy business to succeed at, but it's not the answer, and that's why I think a lot of the, a lot of the movement is in nonprofit local news, because you can begin to tap different sources of support beyond those traditional two, and that development has a ways to go before it reaches everyone it has to reach.
So explain a little bit more about those models. I mean, is this mostly foundations and grants? Well, I think what's happening is that in city after city, community after community, there's a,
a- an interval that has to h- happen where the people in that community, including community foundations, local rich guys and gals, businesses, understand that if they don't start to fund newsrooms or contribute to the support of existing newsrooms, there's not gonna be any journalism in these areas.
And that's taking a, a while to sink in as a message because people are used to the press being there, and they're used to trying to get noticed when they have new things to talk about, and publicity and public relations, and it's taking a while for the message to sink in that that could actually go away.
And so part of the support system is local foundations, yes, or national ones that are supporting experiments on the ground in cities and towns, but it's also people who live there waking up to the new realities and, and deciding whether they wanna support original reporting, public service journalism in their communities.
And a lot more people have to sort of come to that realization and begin the process of figuring out a support system that goes beyond occasional grants, for example, for interesting projects.
And I think there are an emerging class of national organizations that have an interest in that process, and they're trying to help it along, but each community is kind of, like, at a different stage in waking up to this and figuring out local measures that may start to address it.
Mm-hmm. And it's... That's a very interesting development.
It's worth following, but it doesn't produce, like, e- easy, reliable generalizations about where we are yet.Yeah a-and also, it's not gonna bring back the, the newspapers of yesteryear, right? So it- No...
it seems very clear that a lot of the models that are emerging are gonna be a lot leaner. You're gonna need to do more with less.
I don't think AI is gonna go to the school board meetings, but maybe, maybe it can crunch the school board minutes. It's possible. It could just... They're on Zoom, so it's possible.
But there is gonna have to be a lot of innovation on that because, you know, just the kinds of local newspapers at least that I grew up with, I don't see that coming back. I don't...
When you look at what is happening to the national chains, it, you know, that, that is not on a path to growth. So definitely need to- No...
find more creative solutions, I think, for finding those subsidies at the end of the day.
Yes, and I, I think we also need to go back in time and, and realize that the period when you had these semi-monopolies for local news in most metro areas and cities and large towns with the local newspaper producing year by year twenty to thirty percent margins, that was just a remarkable time [chuckles] when this business was, excuse the cliche, you know, a license to print money.
It, it's, it applies to, to the history of that business. And a lot of things sort of pile up and become routine when you have a monopoly like that.
And when you think about it, twenty to thirty percent margins every year if you did the same thing you did the year before, what other industries are like that? The only one that I can think of is drug dealing.
And so- Tech is, is not that far off. [chuckles] Tech sometimes. Depending on. [chuckles] Okay, but tech doesn't allow you to do exactly the same thing you did last year and earn twenty percent margins.
O-only if you can keep marching- Oh... out, you know, new technologies and new versions and, and do more. But anyway, um, what my point is, is that that was a more of a parenthesis, you know, than, than anything.
And existing for decades as a monopoly where it was easy to make a lot of money has a cost on the organization as a whole. It's, it's almost like a, in a, in a way, s-a secret trauma.
[chuckles] So for example, there are-- there wasn't when the internet hit and digital transformation became the reality, there wasn't a lot of technical knowledge in those organizations.
They weren't ready for that kind of shift.
The chances that they would be able to figure out original and effective responses to digital transformation were almost zero because the learning capacity of those organizations just wasn't there.
And so I think we're realizing this now that it is firmly over that period, that it... And it's never coming back, as you said.
But even that, still, with all of that, the remnants of that industry, the newspaper industry in local cities and around the country, is still there.
And, and it still produces some profit, which is why the financial firms are interested in it, because you can still milk a f-a few years of profit out of a dying asset.
But for those cities where the financial industry has not taken over the newspaper, where you have local owners who want there to be high public service journalism in that city, they are discovering that they can do it.
So there's places like... There, there's a sort of a small class of independent newspapers that are still, n-I wouldn't say thriving, but they're definitely alive and they continue to provide good service. Boston is one.
Minneapolis is another one. Charleston, South Carolina, is a third one. I would put Salt Lake City in there too, which became a nonprofit and is sort of supported by the community.
The Seattle Times is in that category as well. They're all independent, somewhat. Some are family-owned or billionaire-owned, but they don't... They have an interest in having investments in any other place.
They wanna build their newsroom in this place. And I ran into somebody who had worked in Minneapolis Star Tribune. We began to cha-chat about this. And I said, "You know what?
You sh- y- those newspapers that I just named are part of a special class. They should get together and figure out how they can help each other." And he told me that they already do that.
They, like, like, have monthly calls or something like that where they, they kinda s-take stock of where they're at.
And the contrast between, I wouldn't say homegrown, but home-rooted newsrooms run under this other economy are just very different from the financial firms and what they're doing.
Yeah, I don't see that being the solution or, you know, go-going back to the, the Gannetts, et cetera. I mean, I, I wish them all well, but I, I'm not, [chuckles]
I'm not too confident that they're gonna, uh, figure this out. And then the AI era is lurking, and I think it's, it's not really... There's so few details. It, it can possibly...
Who knows, uh, how it is gonna affect, uh, this sector, uh, along with every other sector.
Uh, but it is very clear that there is going to be yet another technological shift that is taking place, and that's gonna open up opportunities. Do you have too much confidence in upstarts in, in the local space?
You know, we've seen people try to create, you know, newsletter networks, veryKind of lo-fi products, to be honest with you. A lot of aggregation. Mm-hmm. I, I hope they can make it.
I'm not sure how much they're going to be able to do of the kind of substantive work that, that people want from local news sources. It's a really rough business. There's a lot of people in it.
There's thousands of local news sites run by people who want to provide that service, and it's, you know, it's a difficult life.
Many of them, though, manage to do some really good journalism, and they, and they are relied upon in cities and in towns. Trying to c-combine them into a company, into a network, I don't have much hope for that.
But people who are very dedicated are often able to kind of, like, break off a part of the community and do really good service for them. But it's, it's hard.
And there, there are good national organizations for these local sites. There are-- There is help from other publishers who have gone through some of the same trials and failures. So that part is, is kind of working.
But the thing that makes me mo-most optimistic would be kind of coalitions between, for example, public radio, the stronger digital journalism, the weaker newspapers that need to combine with others, that maybe there's some strength to be had there.
But each solution is kind of like a one-off. It's not like you can figure out how to fund local news and repeat it, you know, in market after market. I don't, I don't see that either. It's, it's...
Everybody who, who's kinda had a success, it's a, it's a very local, idiosyncratic success. Yeah. So be-beyond the technological platforms, how do you think the news product needs to change?
I mean, I was, I was reading something that, like, almost a third of, of, of US adults eighteen to, to thirty get their news from TikTok, right? That, that tells me something, right?
It doesn't-- 'Cause I think one of the, the, the questions I end up having is maybe the, the product that is being put out, this might not just be what the consumers want.
And it's most economic categories, you don't end up blaming the customer. You say, "Well, let's look at the product and fix the product." Yeah, I don't know how to answer that. I don't have a good answer to that.
I don't really know what people mean when they say they get their news from TikTok. I don't disbelieve what they're saying. I just don't really know what they mean. Do you? I think that, [sighs]
again, I'm extrapolating this, but the way I take that to mean is that when you ask people how they become informed about what's going on around them and what they're interested in- Mm-hmm...
and that can be a wide variety.
It can be everything from Taylor Swift on down or up, depending on how you're looking at it, that they end up relying on a platform like TikTok, much the same way if you asked the question probably, I don't know, five-plus years ago, it would be Facebook.
Mm-hmm. Now, a lot of that was being provided by, you know, news publishers, much to their chagrin, but now there's a lot of creators out there. They are spreading information, sometimes misinformation.
And my working theory is, is that the news industry must compete in a much broader and more chaotic information- Yeah... environment that is filled with all kinds of different people. Yes, I would agree with that.
The whole idea that most people will be informed by a news industry that's intends to inform them is just not a reliable idea anymore.
And I agree with you that the competition is not other producers of news, but every other use of the internet that there is. And I think a lot of people in the business do understand that.
Semafor, for example, was founded with the as-assumption that that was true, and I think that'll continue- Yeah... to shine as, as a, as a kind of a symbol of how different this environment is for producers of news.
They're in competition with every other possible use of the internet, and, and investors know that, you know, the platforms know that. The people who start businesses in this space, I think, understand that.
And we're still trying to figure out where does that leave public service journalism. Public service journalism is what I care...
I, I don't really care that much about the media business, even though it's fascinating business. Mm-hmm. What, what I...
matters to me as a journalism educator, a teacher, and a supporter of a healthy press is public service journalism and how does that survive. Yeah. Yeah.
But d- you don't think that there can be, like, lessons learned at all there as far as just packaging and delivery because, you know, public service journalism needs to attract an audience. True.
And it needs to be repackaged, and it... Obviously, there's a lot being made of a loss of trust.
I'm not sure, l-look, a lot of times this is working the refs and, you know, people who are upset with, quote-unquote, "the media" end up pointing to a loss of trust.
But there, there is certainly, across the board, there is less trust in institutions and- Yes... you know, journalism- But-... is an institu- If I could-... institution, for sure... interrupt for a second there.
It's true that there is less trust in institutions broadly, and it's not a recent thing. It's actually began mid-'70s and has gone down from there.
However, in the news business, that doesn'tquite explain everything because journalism and and public service news provision is one industry that is supposed to keep track of the loss of trust and faith in all the other industries.
And so you would think that if that was working, the loss of trust in institutions like Congress would or could actually be a boon to the news industry because they're supposed to document that.
They're supposed to explain that. They're supposed to warn about that. But that hasn't been the case. The,
the news industry is, is not only losing trust in the same space and pace that other institutions are, but it's actually exceeding some of those other institutions. But the loss of trust is, is...
I, I used to think it was the, uh, you know, the problem number one and the thing that I should really try to figure out as a writer and critic, but over time, I've kind of lost focus on that because trust is a very tricky subject, and I can illustrate what I mean i-in a, in a single comparison, I think.
People trust wildly disinformation sites, [chuckles] you know? And they have a lot of trust in some really crazy propositions coming out of the digital information sphere.
And so the fact that people trust their sources of information isn't really impressive if, if their source of information is an unreliable blog.
And so the existence of people's trust in their news sources is not itself a comforting thing. What we really care about is trust in those organizations that are trustworthy, which is a- Hmm...
smaller, much smaller percentage, right, of the producers of news, many of which are unreliable.
Yeah, that's a, that's a great point because I think a, a lot of times we just paint with a broad brush when it comes to a-any trust issues, particularly when it comes to, to journalism.
I do think, you know, heading into this election, how do you grade so far? It's, it-- obviously, we're really just getting started even though it feels like we've been doing this for, for a long time.
Do you think that broadly speaking, news organizations have learned lessons about how to deal with the unique challenge that is covering Donald Trump?
I think they have been able to change some things pretty dramatically.
The, the one that gets the most attention and then usually is spoken of by journalists themselves first is they learned to say that a lie is a lie and use that language, which in twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen, they did not have that freedom to say that.
There also been some progress in recognizing that to give Trump a platform can have its own problems, even if it is newsworthy in some abstract way, and that a lot of self-awareness is required to decide whether to, quote-unquote, "platform him."
They've sort of taken that problem on in a way that wasn't there in twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen, so that's good as well. I think they have done okay at recognizing that Trump is kind of
a, a unique force and unlike candidates and officeholders we've seen in the past. They have made a lot of movement there.
But in another way, if I ask myself, what did the American press decide to do differently, and how did they rethink their routines knowing that it was pretty likely that Trump would run again in twenty twenty-four?
And the answer is they pretty much went into that battle with the same tools and weapons and ideas that they had in twenty sixteen.
I don't, I don't see that there's been a wholesale rethinking of how to cover somebody like Trump, and certainly not in how to protect democracy from the MAGA movement's attempt to unbuild it.
They, instead of assuming that they're gonna have to do things differently, I think they tried to take their, their normal tools and use them against a very abnormal subject. Yeah.
So the big rethink never really happened is another way to put it. Yeah, no, he's, he's a unique challenge without a doubt.
Just figuring out where, when to, like, interject, I think, because, you know, look, Trump says a lot of things that are not correct, and at the same time- Mm-hmm... there's a market...
It's almost impossible to convince a large swath of the population that something is incorrect at this point. And I, I guess what I, I...
what I wonder is the role that the, the news media ends up playing there because even, even when it is correct, I feel like sometimes that ends up playing into the narrative that is being created.
You know, the-there's these games that are being played, and the news media is being used as a tool. It's a, it's in the political sphere. Yes.
Trump obviously knows and understands how to manipulate the, the, the news media very well. He's done it throughout his entire career, and he's just continued it in this phase of his career. Yes.
So falling into his traps, I think, is, is the hardest thing. Yes, I agree with that.
One example of that is he regularly says to his most rabid followers that they, in this case today is the news mediaThey are critical of me because they hate you.
And in the degree that people buy that and feel that message and, and sort of take it on themselves, that means that they're rejecting the product, the actual journalism produced by the mainstream media automatically.
And the fact that critical c-- responsible, critical coverage of Trump is produced by the news media actually enrages them more.
And that has been one of his real accomplishments as an authoritarian, is that he's found this way to convert what at one time would have been considered bad news, bad publicity, you know, w- stories that weaken the aura of a political figure.
He's able to convert the bad news for him into good news through these essentially propaganda networks or, or, or atmosphere.
Another thing that's been very successful is flooding the zone with crap and just piling up the, the, the rotten truth claims that can't be proved and can't be shown and mixing in a few correct facts with a lot of bad information and just overwhelming the public sphere with not just sensational, but enraging content.
And that method of over-communicating, overproduction, it has been very effective.
And it's, it, v-- it's difficult to know how to counter that because your answer is likely to involve adding to the pile [chuckles] you know, at the same time. And so there's no easy solution to that.
Yeah, that's what I wonder because, I mean, even in pointing out lies wh-when they happen, it's not gonna change anyone's mind.
You know, I don't mean to, like, just throw up your hands or anything, but there, there's not a giant market for that.
I just notice the difference when I, when I read The New York Times, they're just confirming what everyone believes at the end of the day.
Nothing is surprising in the new-- i-in-- d-depending on your news source anymore. And then when visiting my parents, Fox News is on, and it's completely the opposite. [chuckles] And I don't know.
I, I, I wonder because the...
i-i-- particularly in political news, we've become so seemingly retreated into these tribal spaces that I'm not sure if it's helping to make people more informed because a lot of people when it, particularly when it comes to politics, don't necessarily want to be more informed if it isn't, if it doesn't confirm their priors.
That's a problem. It's real. At the same time, I think it is also true that he is getting worse. He is getting more extreme in his claims and threats. He is veering closer- Yeah... and closer to fascism.
He does sound more, more desperate. He's also getting less coherent.
And so in that environment that you just described, the tribalism, it's difficult to see how a drift like that would, would even get through to people because Americans know who Trump is by now.
I don't think that there are, you know, large truths about him that haven't been well communicated. Like, the story has been told, right?
And that leaves this slow creep towards fascism, which is real, very hard to communicate about.
And just throwing around the word fascism doesn't do anything for anybody, even if it may be true, and dangerously so. How would you gauge broadly the news industry's coverage of Biden? Has it been...
What have been the differences with how the media's cover-covered Trump when he was president?
Well, I think of Biden as kind of a normal politician trying to operate in a normal way, and the coverage of him is normal as well, but it stands out in comparison to the fire that's constantly burning around Trump.
And at the same time, Biden has decided what other presidents before him have decided but has gone further than them, that a lot of interviews and press conferences with the press who are going to ask inconvenient questions is just not in his interest, and that enrages the Washington press corps.
I understand why that is. But on the whole, that policy doesn't cost him with his voters or even with undecided voters to the extent that they exist.
And so this, this whole world in which together the presidents, their press secretaries and media people and the White House press corps, the idea that together they kinda create this dialogue that informs the nation about the executive branch is, it's falling apart.
That whole structure is falling apart, and part of it is that the information sphere is broken up now into different territories and republics.
So the whole idea of a singular public sphere is unworkable and inaccurate, and a lot of the best journalism produced by the national press never has a chance to get to or through-The people who instead look to the conservative media sphere for their news and that fragmentation is also a huge part of the story as well, and nobody has an answer or quote-unquote solution to that.
Yeah. I mean, I was struck when Biden turned down the traditional Super Bowl Sunday interview. Very striking, yes. Crazy to think about.
That-- I think it was just like a week or so earlier, I, I saw him and Joe Biden on a Instagram meme account. They did an, they did a brief little interview.
It's called Meet Cutes NYC, where they ask people where, how they met, uh, couples how they met. And so they did that, but they wouldn't do the... And I think that is indicative.
You know, you almost have a better shot if you're a popular podcaster of [chuckles] getting in a political interview because... And I don't think that's coming back to some degree.
I don't know if it's good or if it's bad. Yeah.
I know political journalists are not gonna like it, but I understand the, the, the reasons that it's happening, and I think it's, it's, you're starting to see it in other spheres, right?
I, I, I see it particularly- Yes... in the tech industry. Totally.
A lot of what is going on in politics has moved over there delegitimizing, quote-unquote, the media, spinning what seems to be conspiracy theories that, like, a bunch of people get into a room and decide how to take down these powerful tech people, I guess, from apartments in Fort Greene, and then going, quote-unquote, going direct.
They go to friendly- Yep... podcasters versus going to journalists. Yes. You could say it this way, that risk reduction has replaced message spreading, and now you don't need the news media to spread your message.
You can go, as you said, to a friendly podcaster, and so the focus is on reducing possible harm from encounters with the press. And you see it in politics, and you definitely see it in tech.
You see it in other businesses, and that's gonna force journalists to change the way they operate.
Probably argues for more of a outside in movement as opposed to trying to be inside out because the in- people inside for the insider press don't wanna talk to the press, except anonymously.
And newsrooms like Politico, you know, were built on automatic acceptance of anonymous quotes because that's the only way they could really figure out what's going on inside these citadels. Yeah.
And I think, you know, it's always the issue about where journalists go and whether it becomes more adversarial or whether it becomes less, or whether it becomes more grounded in observable facts versus...
You know, I think one of the problems of misinformation and lies is, is labeling it can sometimes be qualitative.
And if I had, like, a criticism of the overall tone of a lot of news coverage is just reading The New York Times now, I go to The New York Times because it is the shining example of the industry, it is a completely different experience reading these articles than it was twenty years ago.
It is just...
A- a- even if you go back and look at this, just read the articles, it's almost like you're reading it from a, in some ways you are, from a different century, but it was like, it feels like it, it was a lot longer ago than just twenty years ago.
And to me, that's a business model. I know the Times won't necessarily agree with it, but it is a lifestyle publication for, for progressives at this point.
Now, the messenger was supposedly gonna be a corrective- The people who own it and run it don't know that. [chuckles] Do you observe differently? I think this is a very complex subject. [chuckles] For sure.
And about, what was it? About twenty years ago, the first public editor of The New York Times said in a column in The New York Times, "Is The New York Times a liberal newspaper?"
And then he answered the question, "Of course it is." And that was the public editor. The editors of The Times went kinda crazy about that. They didn't like that at all. They insisted it wasn't true.
And to me, that was a critical moment where I think The New York Times could have had a different response, which is, "Yeah, we are," and then built the world's best, biggest, and strongest liberal newspaper and profited thereby.
But this is not how they see themselves.
I know how people see them, but I'm here to tell you the people who run and own and operate The New York Times believe that they are without ideology and that it is that property of theirs that makes them a reliable and profitable organization.
And they get attacked, of course, for being too liberal. They get attacked- Mm-hmm... by liberals for being too conservative or open to cons- crazy conservative thought and conduct.
But in their minds, it's their distance from both parties and their detachment from partisanship of any kind that makes them strong.
And so they essentially agree with no one in this debate.
What I would add, though, is that there's no question that forms of news that are really derived from judgments and opinions, or what people in philosophy might call priors, have increased in that there's a lot more, quote-unquote, analysis than there used to be.
There's a lot more point of view journalism that is just regularFor The New York Times to do, and yet if you try to characterize what that point of view is, the people running The New York Times deny that, especially the current publisher.
They, they don't rely on the term objectivity anymore because they see it's kind of lost its reputation. But they do use the term independent.
So now their goal is to be independent of everything, including every identifiable ideology. Yeah. Is that a worthy goal to replace objectivity? Well, it's no more revealing [laughs]
than objectivity, is what I would say. And I would also say, going back to that moment where the public editor says, "Is The New York Times a liberal newspaper? Of course it is."
By the way, he, he ended up saying, "What I meant was in its cultural coverage, it is liberal in being open to many different lifestyles." He sort of qualified it in some way.
But going back to that moment, which I think is underappreciated in, among observers of The New York Times, I think if they had chosen to say, "Yeah, we are a liberal newspaper, what, what do you make of that?
And we are also dedicated to verification and dedicated to transparency and v- and very high quality, and we put a ton of, uh, effort into making sure that we are accurate in our reporting, and we know that some people with a different point of view are not sharing our point of view, but you know what?
They're gonna end up reading us too because our product is better and we are more accurate. We care more about the truth. We, we produce journalism that's hard to refute."
And I think th- that direction would have been available to them, but they just chose another way. Yeah. Well, that is definitely one where- And with that, I think we should end it. We should. Thank you, Jay. No problem.
[outro music]