Money quote: "Now the cacophony of a hyper-democratized information environment tests our ability to discuss, relate, and engage with others in pluralistic good faith."
I agree. There are so many examples of the media needing to backpedal on the mainstream narrative (and even more examples of them digging in their heels when proven wrong) that I think there needs to be a major overhaul before they earn back public trust.
I'm attempting to formulate what I think is a charitable response to some of the comments here on the "mainstream media" and its apparent unending bad faith for some, which I think has become one of the besetting problems in sustaining any kind of better public discourse about shared facts and evidence. So in that spirit, I'll use "I statements."
I acknowledge my own fallibility and biases in looking at the media landscape and where I chose to trust, and where not to trust. I've done this for several decades, have attempted to read widely and make sense of conflicting stories, evidence, facts as well as the motivations of journalists and media organizations.
I attempt to use what I call "calibrated trust" in dealing with the media. That means I use due skepticism when appropriate, but I don't dismiss mainstream media sources just because they're "mainstream" (whatever that means now). Is the "mainstream press" a single thing? A unitary thing that confabulates and coordinates conspiracy theories--or misinformation--among themselves? I don't think so.
I believe that demonizing the mainstream press and some of its best journalists isn't especially helpful. I also think that characterizing the "mainstream press" as a monolith isn't accurate, given widely varying perspectives, motivations, and agendas even among the "legacy press" or the "mainstream press." These labels have become tropes that in my view stop clear thinking, cliches, in fact.
I believe that the mainstream press in many. instances does try to self-correct--these are imperfect organizations with human beings who are fallible, but there are professional practices that matter to the best of them (if not all of their editor or reporters).
I think I benefit from reading and cross-checking what I get from various media sources against each other, against official sources (government agencies who collect data, various professional associations).
I think that I have to live within my own "pseudo-environment", as Lippman describes it, because I have partial information and my own perspectives, but I try to overcome it by not making unwarranted assumptions or dismissing a whole part of our information ecosystem (the mainstream press) because it is also imperfect, but is capable of self-correction.
I'll offer here some names of outstanding journalists with a high level of professionalism who write for the "mainstream press", which suggests to me that dismissing the entire highly varied enterprise isn't especially helpful. I also point to these reporters and commentators as counterpoints to the whole "narrative" itself that the mainstream press is not to be trusted. I prefer to use specifics rather than generalities about the "mainstream" press since I think that provides a better basis for discussion.
Nick Confessore--the New York Times: outstanding investigative work on the DEI apparatus at the University of Michigan that is now seeing major review by the university's Board of Regents
Pamela Paul--the New York Times: expert commentary on various cultural issues, including especially transgender issues, the debates over gender ideology and youth gender medicine. One of the few journalists in the mainstream press to discuss the Cass Report from the UK.
Dan Balz--The Washington Post--expert political analysis and reporting for decades
Carol Leonning--The Washington Post-- reporting on Secret Service culture during the first Trump administration was outstanding because of her sourcing
Michael Powell--formerly of The New York Times, now of The Atlantic--expert reporting on DEI requirements at UCLA and other institutions
George Packer--The Atlantic--expert commentary on sociopolitical changes in American culture
Cathy Young--Newsday, now the Bulwark--outstanding investigative reporting on public health, Trump nominations for the second term, the war in Ukraine, many other topics
Ed Luce--Financial Times--outstanding commentary on American politics from an outsider's (British) eyes
These are just a few of the reporters and analysts who I depend on for evidence and perspective on a very complicated world, and I benefit from reading them. I don't always accept every point they make in their stories or the conclusions they draw, but I find them trustworthy in general. That's always with best way, in my view, and it's a lot more useful for me than taking an absolutist dismissive stance against everything called the "mainstream press". If anyone can convince me to dismiss these highly professional journalists just because they work for mainstream media outlets, I'd like to see convincing evidence of why the journalists themselves aren't to be trusted.
Since we're supposed to believe in, and practice, viewpoint diversity in this space, I thought I'd offer two viewpoint-diverse perspectives that are counterpoints to the "narrative" about mainstream press perfidy. And that "narrative" about the bad-faith and corrupt mainstream media is surely as much a narrative that some believe in as much as the official "narratives" that the mainstream press apparently concocts about many matters, larger and small.
Money quote: "Now the cacophony of a hyper-democratized information environment tests our ability to discuss, relate, and engage with others in pluralistic good faith."
Until the mainstream media does a better job of investigating "official" narratives I don't see things improving. As a recent example, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has recently published a report that confirms what were once "conspiracy theories." https://oversight.house.gov/release/final-report-covid-select-concludes-2-year-investigation-issues-500-page-final-report-on-lessons-learned-and-the-path-forward/
I agree. There are so many examples of the media needing to backpedal on the mainstream narrative (and even more examples of them digging in their heels when proven wrong) that I think there needs to be a major overhaul before they earn back public trust.
I saw a bumpersticker on a car that read "The difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth is about six months."
I'm attempting to formulate what I think is a charitable response to some of the comments here on the "mainstream media" and its apparent unending bad faith for some, which I think has become one of the besetting problems in sustaining any kind of better public discourse about shared facts and evidence. So in that spirit, I'll use "I statements."
I acknowledge my own fallibility and biases in looking at the media landscape and where I chose to trust, and where not to trust. I've done this for several decades, have attempted to read widely and make sense of conflicting stories, evidence, facts as well as the motivations of journalists and media organizations.
I attempt to use what I call "calibrated trust" in dealing with the media. That means I use due skepticism when appropriate, but I don't dismiss mainstream media sources just because they're "mainstream" (whatever that means now). Is the "mainstream press" a single thing? A unitary thing that confabulates and coordinates conspiracy theories--or misinformation--among themselves? I don't think so.
I believe that demonizing the mainstream press and some of its best journalists isn't especially helpful. I also think that characterizing the "mainstream press" as a monolith isn't accurate, given widely varying perspectives, motivations, and agendas even among the "legacy press" or the "mainstream press." These labels have become tropes that in my view stop clear thinking, cliches, in fact.
I believe that the mainstream press in many. instances does try to self-correct--these are imperfect organizations with human beings who are fallible, but there are professional practices that matter to the best of them (if not all of their editor or reporters).
I think I benefit from reading and cross-checking what I get from various media sources against each other, against official sources (government agencies who collect data, various professional associations).
I think that I have to live within my own "pseudo-environment", as Lippman describes it, because I have partial information and my own perspectives, but I try to overcome it by not making unwarranted assumptions or dismissing a whole part of our information ecosystem (the mainstream press) because it is also imperfect, but is capable of self-correction.
I'll offer here some names of outstanding journalists with a high level of professionalism who write for the "mainstream press", which suggests to me that dismissing the entire highly varied enterprise isn't especially helpful. I also point to these reporters and commentators as counterpoints to the whole "narrative" itself that the mainstream press is not to be trusted. I prefer to use specifics rather than generalities about the "mainstream" press since I think that provides a better basis for discussion.
Nick Confessore--the New York Times: outstanding investigative work on the DEI apparatus at the University of Michigan that is now seeing major review by the university's Board of Regents
Pamela Paul--the New York Times: expert commentary on various cultural issues, including especially transgender issues, the debates over gender ideology and youth gender medicine. One of the few journalists in the mainstream press to discuss the Cass Report from the UK.
Dan Balz--The Washington Post--expert political analysis and reporting for decades
Carol Leonning--The Washington Post-- reporting on Secret Service culture during the first Trump administration was outstanding because of her sourcing
Michael Powell--formerly of The New York Times, now of The Atlantic--expert reporting on DEI requirements at UCLA and other institutions
George Packer--The Atlantic--expert commentary on sociopolitical changes in American culture
Cathy Young--Newsday, now the Bulwark--outstanding investigative reporting on public health, Trump nominations for the second term, the war in Ukraine, many other topics
Ed Luce--Financial Times--outstanding commentary on American politics from an outsider's (British) eyes
These are just a few of the reporters and analysts who I depend on for evidence and perspective on a very complicated world, and I benefit from reading them. I don't always accept every point they make in their stories or the conclusions they draw, but I find them trustworthy in general. That's always with best way, in my view, and it's a lot more useful for me than taking an absolutist dismissive stance against everything called the "mainstream press". If anyone can convince me to dismiss these highly professional journalists just because they work for mainstream media outlets, I'd like to see convincing evidence of why the journalists themselves aren't to be trusted.
Since we're supposed to believe in, and practice, viewpoint diversity in this space, I thought I'd offer two viewpoint-diverse perspectives that are counterpoints to the "narrative" about mainstream press perfidy. And that "narrative" about the bad-faith and corrupt mainstream media is surely as much a narrative that some believe in as much as the official "narratives" that the mainstream press apparently concocts about many matters, larger and small.
Richard Hanania, Why the Media is Honest and Good
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/why-the-media-is-honest-and-good
Scott Alexander, Why the Media Very Rarely Lies
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-media-very-rarely-lies