This whole article led me to believe that a lot of people who work in big-corp news orgs don’t really understand what the rest of our lives are like in many ways. Be it the Times, Post, Fox News, or CNN, they think they are the centers of the universe. They think they themselves are critically important, not people being able to access accurate news.
Over the last century or so, our smaller local media orgs have been eaten up by massive corporations. I don’t think that’s been particularly good for us, nor do I think people who’ve learned to thrive in these sorts of organizations really see that what’s happening now is just a more overt version of what’s happened over the last century or so.
As for solutions to all this? I think these folks, the ones who really care, need to start leaving and forming their own independent, smaller news orgs. And if it’s not affordable for them to do so in cities like LA or NYC (hint: those places aren’t affordable for anyone), they need to do this in other parts of the country.
(Really, this applies to everyone in every industry: if you don’t like what big corporations and evermore shareholder-driven economies are doing, go work for smaller companies that don’t have shareholders.)
One thread is how Al Neuharth (founder of USA Today) started the enshittification doom loop. The other is about one (now independent) investigative journalist's efforts to keep local journalism alive.
The anchor desk "journalism" Beltway media corporate slaves (who don't realize they are slaves) exist on the delusion that their point of view is every point of view. They don't get out into the real world™ much. They're there to collect a paycheck, repeat the soundbites and read the teleprompter, and not offend their corporate/political masters lest they lose access and/or patronage. Ask Chris Hedges, the late Phil Donahue, or anyone else fired for daring to question the "patriotic" march to a largely pointless war.
In many ways, beltway media is the most informed, at least with regards to the government picture of things — after all, the job is talking (informally and formally) to key stakeholders (and their underlings).
That there are forces that try to shape this narrative, and consequences for those who fight it without their own power base, should be so self-evident it’s not even worth mentioning.
The alternative to “anchor desk journalism beltway media” isn’t less controlled media, but even more obfuscated control.
For all the faults of the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc., at least they have their own power base.
Decentralized smaller media holding powerful entities to account hasn’t shown us that it works better — just that individuals can be bought much more cheaply (and invisibly) than newsrooms.
Which in essence is the post’s entire point: media which survives genAi needs to differentiate its product. It can’t do that on (a) cost of production or (b) diversity of content. The only remaining options are (c) trust, powered by (d) the type of reporting it takes corporate funding and long-term journalist relationships and investigations to generate.
> In many ways, beltway media is the most informed, at least with regards to the government picture of things — after all, the job is talking (informally and formally) to key stakeholders (and their underlings).
Certainly, we need reporters who have physical access to people in Washington, DC. But why do you think the way beltway media operates today is optimal? I’d argue it’s actually quite pathological.
I think local reporters, from any county of any state, should be able to routinely go to and report from DC. This would probably have to be paid for with some combination of state, federal, and local taxes (and hopefully concessions from the federal government to let smaller towns/cities in). Yes, there would be “inefficiencies,” but of course the tradeoff is we have robust, trustworthy media.
In today’s news media market, only reporters working for big corporations can even afford to stay in and report from DC. In fact… that’s exactly the problem. These people really are deeply disconnected from beltway outsiders (99% of our population).
As a member of the general public capable of understanding even elementary school playground social dynamics, you’d honestly have to be pretty braindead to trust what comes out of a “news” system that operates this way.
Finally let’s address your assertion (without evidence or anecdotes) that “decentralized smaller media holding powerful entities to account hasn’t shown us that it works better.” Um, are you familiar with the American Revolution? Or French Revolution? Or Bolshevik? Do you think these people were recruiting, marketing, and communicating through centralized news channels? And to go only just a bit further back… you do realize that the printing press has barely been around for a fraction of human history, right?
We also didn’t have the internet in the past. The internet has basically been a death blow for the actual profitability of the big corporate news media orgs that we allowed to form from the 1870s-1980s. This handful of news mega-corporations we had then just can’t operate in a way any American would describe as “ethical,” and also earn a profit, in a world where the internet exists. Since then, the economic system that created them has pushed them to “consolidate for efficiency” and fall into ever-wealthier corporate hands.
I certainly can’t claim I know the solution to all this - decentralized media has issues that need addressing. But I don’t think that “double down on centralized media” is part of it. Centralized media is pretty well-understood as a primary tool of fascism - every tyrannical government in basically all of human history has been built upon it. I also don’t think “this org is too big to fail” has ever done much good for working people - just the wealthy. It’s preserved some 401Ks, but we also need to talk about the issues with that system, which is getting a bit far off topic.
Anyway, hope you don’t deem this “casual and lazy.” Curious about your response.
PS: It would be helpful to avoid using terms like “beltway media” that aren’t clearly defined in dictionaries, or universally understood. Instead, say “media from the DC metro area.”
> only reporters working for big corporations can even afford to stay in and report from DC. In fact… that’s exactly the problem. These people really are deeply disconnected from beltway outsiders
You’re ignoring how connected they can be to beltway insiders. Relationships like that are built counterparty trust.
Few people are willing to risk their job or negative career repercussions to give information to a stranger, who may or may not have the skills to do anything with it.
The trust is equal parts {I trust that you will keep your word (whether source confidentiality, on/off record, etc)} and {I trust your competence and work ethic as a reporter}.
> I certainly can’t claim I know the solution to all this - decentralized media has issues that need addressing.
In order to be convinced of the superiority of decentralized news media, I’d want a compelling argument that it’s (a) capable and competent, (b) financially self-sustainable, and (c) more resistant to authoritarianism than traditional centralized media.
I’d be skeptical of all those claims. We all imagine the plucky citizen-journalist, but for every one of those (driven by their own morals more than financial considerations!), I find it hard to believe there’s not a tide of dark money astroturf that’s virtually indistinguishable.
No big-media doesn’t automatically mean Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It means Paulie Podcast gets $250/month in “advertising” buy from someone who wants to put a particular take out in the infosphere.
> Anyway, hope you don’t deem this “casual and lazy.”
I don't read the opinion section because you can get opinions anywhere and there are better blogs on Substack. The news reporting in the Washington Post seems as good as ever, as far as I can tell.
A lot of people supported the Iraq War, in the belief that experts supported it. It took something that was effectively a top-level government conspiracy to cover up the fact that the actual experts disagreed.
It wasn't a complete suppression of the facts, but an awful lot of genuine experts were manipulated into saying things that were misleading.
So I could pardon that particular mistake, at least a little. But I hold it against him for not recognizing where this manipulation was coming from, for well over a decade after it was blindingly obvious.
Demanding the conflation of opinion with expert instruction is one reason why Media is in terminal decline.
A large part of credibility in expertise is the ability to naturally lead. People tend to follow who reads as credible. If someone doesn't read as such, it isn't the fault their missing audience.
If they are credible and yet lack the ability to communicate that, I'd suggest that's both rare in-practice but would be a dire skill issue. Examining what is wrong with them and why better people aren't employed would be the logical next step.
Pretending that facts cannot be manipulated is fundamental to propaganda, regardless of color. A big discussion of facts, experts and opinions is a way to escape addressing the ubiquitous propaganda problem.
Sure, its an opinion with no facts about fact based assessment. Assuming this person is an unbiased observer and a well prescient one would be a mistake.
Journalists should have realised a long time ago that their opinions are a commodity, and they will destroy their entire industry by focusing on opinions and not on on-the-ground reporting. But they doubled down, and decided to be as opinionated as possible. Of course this was tempting, because emotional propaganda gets more clicks.
But I think there would still be a market for a 1990s BBC style on the ground, completely opinion free reporting, and someone could fill this niche because a lot of people WOULD actually pay for this. But it would take a big investment and it's a big risk.
If no-one cared about opinions you would be fine with having just one newspaper that writes down the bare facts. The whole appeal of people paying for media is because they value the opinions on top of the facts that should ideally come from relevant experience/knowledge.
News publishers saw that they needed to differentiate to retain market share. If theyre just reporting news why wouldn't everyone just switch to the AP or reuters?
> But I think there would still be a market for a 1990s BBC style on the ground, completely opinion free reporting, and someone could fill this niche because a lot of people WOULD actually pay for this. But it would take a big investment and it's a big risk.
Look at the article currently promoted at the top of Post opinion page: "Trump is off to a good start with an AI action plan" https://archive.is/ERCme
Regardless of what you think of the quality of that opinion, it took very little effort to make.
Compare the sources they used to the work it would take go out on the ground and do novel research:
- Their own news article about it (itself based on press releases and an off-the-record comment that obviously would have come from someone in the White House press office assigned to promote the press release)
- Their own past opinion pieces
- Reuters.com
- WhiteHouse.gov
- Online govt statistics
- CNN.com
- NeurIPS' blog
- Columbia Business School blog
- Matthew Yglesias' blog
- Greg Lukanioff's blog
I could have found those sources based on vague memories of tweets I've seen by following journalists on Bluesky and a few hours of googling. I suspect they did the same, except they used X instead.
Opinions are like assholes, except that opinion sections of major newspapers don't include toilet paper unless you count their own sandpaper-like periodical.
The second Opinion unit, for outside submissions, is the Amazon reseller concept applied to news. It's why you can't buy anything important on Amazon any more.
There are very few American newspapers left that have actual reporters in the field. The New York Times and the Washington Post are almost the only ones left.
The result is that most stories begin from some press release. Look at the Washington Post right now.
- "Trump, European Union reach trade deal with 15% tariffs" - from a press release.
- "Israel to let more aid trucks into Gaza, under pressure over hunger crisis
Israel said..." - press release
- "Denied federal flood relief, a Maryland town is left on its own" - actual reporter coverage of regional news.
- "Trump’s imaginary numbers, from $1.99 gas to 1,500 percent price cuts" - desk work, rehash of existing info.
For most other newspapers, it's even worse. Few if any boots on the ground.
"News is what someone doesn't want published. All else is publicity"
I know some Dutch newspapers that didn't have any. It was mostly the free local papers that did.
Edit: these papers are still around, I just don't know if they still don't have classifieds because I don't read any papers anymore. The whole idea of getting a dead tree delivered is kinda old fashioned to me.
One difference between actual journalists and people who just post their opinions on the Internet is that journalists will make phone calls. Even when they don’t talk to people in person, that’s still valuable.
More importantly, true journalists follow the "no surprises" rule and contact the subject to allow them to hear what will be reported, respond to questions, and provide additional information or context that could inform the story.
A lot of people claim to be journalists and yet lack a fundamental understanding of journalistic principles and best practices.
The key result from talking to the relevant parties pre-publication is that it usually enriches the story.
Even if someone is blatantly trying to deny or turn the story, they may give you information you didn’t have before (and that they were unlikely to give you absent publication pressure).
It’s a superpower to be able to say ‘I have words written. Now what would you like to tell me?’
Bari Weiss and Paul Krugman wouldn't agree on almost anything but they agree it's a better life to be writing for Substack than for the NYT.
I enjoy reading Krugman so much now because he seems to be having so much fun now that he doesn't have the weight of the New York Times editors on him.
> they agree it's a better life to be writing for Substack than for the NYT.
The NYT pushed them out because they made fat salaries, money that could, in the company's view, be used to pay for cheaper and younger labor, among other cost-saving measures.
Looks like generic "here's the horrible things rich people are thinking!" from a person who's never been around rich people and doesn't know any more about what they're thinking than anyone else.
Weird that it doesn’t mention Trump. He and Bezos were at odds until Bezos gave him $1M for the inauguration and decided to neuter the Post’s opinion section. Then all threats of antitrust against Amazon magically went away. Bezos probably had to trash the Post to save Amazon. The loss is a drop in the bucket to him.
Rich people have been paying off politicians forever, Trump isn’t the first, and he won’t be the last. Back the winner until the winner is the loser, then back the new winner, repeat. AKA the king is dead long live the king!
Everything Bezos, Jassy and Amazon have been doing in the last ~5 years has been Day 2.Despite this, I think the question to ask is what was the real motivation for Jeff being the Post and what does success look like in that context.
If the goal was to have more control over the narrative in this country and influence news reporting and public opinion in support of Jeff's ambitions, I think there's an argument to be made that he's accomplishing that as we speak.
> Despite this, I think the question to ask is what was the real motivation for Jeff being the Post and what does success look like in that context.
My hunch is it was due to Amazon's attempt to win a majority of the work in the JEDI tender.
WashPo was bought during the height of the JEDI tender, along with Bezos's shift in domicile to Washington DC, Amazon HQ2, and Amazon's opening of the Crystal City and expansion of the Reston city campus all happened during that tender.
The "why" is pretty obvious. Bezos is intimidated by Trump. Under Trump 1 he changed the paper's masthead to "Democracy Dies in Darkness", like out of Batman.
If you look at Russia, you see being an oligarch is particularly dangerous in an authoritarian society. You fall out of a window. You can't get permits for anything, your contracts get canceled. Some average rando can be part of the #resistance and not face consequences because nobody cares but if you are that visible you're vulnerable.
> Over the last year the Post has been involved in almost monthly car wrecks
I mean, unless the subscription number is way down or revenue has dropped significantly (which the article does not seem to mention), none of this matters, which is exactly what Bezos wants.
So far each big, unpopular decision by Bezos has led to significant cancellations of paid subscriptions. Since it's happened more than once I don't think it's safe to assume the remaining subscribers are happy either.
Bezos cancels planned endorsement of Harris: 300,000 paid subscribers cancel in period up to election. (400,000 new paid subscribers over the period, but they offered significant promotional discounts)
Bezos tweets change to opinion policy: 75,000 paid subscribers cancel within four days
With in the order of 2.5 million paid subscribers before all this started that's significant losses.
Agreed. He seems to think that people want to pay to be lectured about "personal freedom and liberty", and should take election advice from him, an oligarch.
Over the last century or so, our smaller local media orgs have been eaten up by massive corporations. I don’t think that’s been particularly good for us, nor do I think people who’ve learned to thrive in these sorts of organizations really see that what’s happening now is just a more overt version of what’s happened over the last century or so.
As for solutions to all this? I think these folks, the ones who really care, need to start leaving and forming their own independent, smaller news orgs. And if it’s not affordable for them to do so in cities like LA or NYC (hint: those places aren’t affordable for anyone), they need to do this in other parts of the country.
(Really, this applies to everyone in every industry: if you don’t like what big corporations and evermore shareholder-driven economies are doing, go work for smaller companies that don’t have shareholders.)
Yes and: by Wall St too.
The documentary Fit to Print [2016] is one telling of this history.
https://tubitv.com/movies/682467/fit-to-print https://fawesome.tv/movies/10568236/fit-to-print
One thread is how Al Neuharth (founder of USA Today) started the enshittification doom loop. The other is about one (now independent) investigative journalist's efforts to keep local journalism alive.
In many ways, beltway media is the most informed, at least with regards to the government picture of things — after all, the job is talking (informally and formally) to key stakeholders (and their underlings).
That there are forces that try to shape this narrative, and consequences for those who fight it without their own power base, should be so self-evident it’s not even worth mentioning.
The alternative to “anchor desk journalism beltway media” isn’t less controlled media, but even more obfuscated control.
For all the faults of the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc., at least they have their own power base.
Decentralized smaller media holding powerful entities to account hasn’t shown us that it works better — just that individuals can be bought much more cheaply (and invisibly) than newsrooms.
Which in essence is the post’s entire point: media which survives genAi needs to differentiate its product. It can’t do that on (a) cost of production or (b) diversity of content. The only remaining options are (c) trust, powered by (d) the type of reporting it takes corporate funding and long-term journalist relationships and investigations to generate.
Certainly, we need reporters who have physical access to people in Washington, DC. But why do you think the way beltway media operates today is optimal? I’d argue it’s actually quite pathological.
I think local reporters, from any county of any state, should be able to routinely go to and report from DC. This would probably have to be paid for with some combination of state, federal, and local taxes (and hopefully concessions from the federal government to let smaller towns/cities in). Yes, there would be “inefficiencies,” but of course the tradeoff is we have robust, trustworthy media.
In today’s news media market, only reporters working for big corporations can even afford to stay in and report from DC. In fact… that’s exactly the problem. These people really are deeply disconnected from beltway outsiders (99% of our population).
As a member of the general public capable of understanding even elementary school playground social dynamics, you’d honestly have to be pretty braindead to trust what comes out of a “news” system that operates this way.
Finally let’s address your assertion (without evidence or anecdotes) that “decentralized smaller media holding powerful entities to account hasn’t shown us that it works better.” Um, are you familiar with the American Revolution? Or French Revolution? Or Bolshevik? Do you think these people were recruiting, marketing, and communicating through centralized news channels? And to go only just a bit further back… you do realize that the printing press has barely been around for a fraction of human history, right?
We also didn’t have the internet in the past. The internet has basically been a death blow for the actual profitability of the big corporate news media orgs that we allowed to form from the 1870s-1980s. This handful of news mega-corporations we had then just can’t operate in a way any American would describe as “ethical,” and also earn a profit, in a world where the internet exists. Since then, the economic system that created them has pushed them to “consolidate for efficiency” and fall into ever-wealthier corporate hands.
I certainly can’t claim I know the solution to all this - decentralized media has issues that need addressing. But I don’t think that “double down on centralized media” is part of it. Centralized media is pretty well-understood as a primary tool of fascism - every tyrannical government in basically all of human history has been built upon it. I also don’t think “this org is too big to fail” has ever done much good for working people - just the wealthy. It’s preserved some 401Ks, but we also need to talk about the issues with that system, which is getting a bit far off topic.
Anyway, hope you don’t deem this “casual and lazy.” Curious about your response.
PS: It would be helpful to avoid using terms like “beltway media” that aren’t clearly defined in dictionaries, or universally understood. Instead, say “media from the DC metro area.”
You’re ignoring how connected they can be to beltway insiders. Relationships like that are built counterparty trust.
Few people are willing to risk their job or negative career repercussions to give information to a stranger, who may or may not have the skills to do anything with it.
The trust is equal parts {I trust that you will keep your word (whether source confidentiality, on/off record, etc)} and {I trust your competence and work ethic as a reporter}.
> I certainly can’t claim I know the solution to all this - decentralized media has issues that need addressing.
In order to be convinced of the superiority of decentralized news media, I’d want a compelling argument that it’s (a) capable and competent, (b) financially self-sustainable, and (c) more resistant to authoritarianism than traditional centralized media.
I’d be skeptical of all those claims. We all imagine the plucky citizen-journalist, but for every one of those (driven by their own morals more than financial considerations!), I find it hard to believe there’s not a tide of dark money astroturf that’s virtually indistinguishable.
No big-media doesn’t automatically mean Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It means Paulie Podcast gets $250/month in “advertising” buy from someone who wants to put a particular take out in the infosphere.
> Anyway, hope you don’t deem this “casual and lazy.”
Nope. I appreciate the substantive disagreement!
- Tom Nichols, The Death of Expertise
It wasn't a complete suppression of the facts, but an awful lot of genuine experts were manipulated into saying things that were misleading.
So I could pardon that particular mistake, at least a little. But I hold it against him for not recognizing where this manipulation was coming from, for well over a decade after it was blindingly obvious.
A large part of credibility in expertise is the ability to naturally lead. People tend to follow who reads as credible. If someone doesn't read as such, it isn't the fault their missing audience.
If they are credible and yet lack the ability to communicate that, I'd suggest that's both rare in-practice but would be a dire skill issue. Examining what is wrong with them and why better people aren't employed would be the logical next step.
To your context, it simply means you havent seen bias in the facts, but dont evaluate the completeness thereof.
This specifically is what wikileaks did in 2016 against the DNC.
So unless you scour the internet for each topic, the full bias isnt obvious.
This is part of what I had in mind, selective reporting of facts is a method of fact manipulation, statistical gaming is another.
> So unless you scour the internet for each topic, the full bias isnt obvious.
Bias on a mass scale is a tool of propaganda, and it cannot be dealt with, if it isn't understood as such.
But I think there would still be a market for a 1990s BBC style on the ground, completely opinion free reporting, and someone could fill this niche because a lot of people WOULD actually pay for this. But it would take a big investment and it's a big risk.
> But I think there would still be a market for a 1990s BBC style on the ground, completely opinion free reporting, and someone could fill this niche because a lot of people WOULD actually pay for this. But it would take a big investment and it's a big risk.
AP and reuters are still doing this today
(I have no idea how to describe, categorize most (opinion) columnists. Vishy? Quislings? Judas goats? Gossip columnists?)
Look at the article currently promoted at the top of Post opinion page: "Trump is off to a good start with an AI action plan" https://archive.is/ERCme
Regardless of what you think of the quality of that opinion, it took very little effort to make.
Compare the sources they used to the work it would take go out on the ground and do novel research:
- Their own news article about it (itself based on press releases and an off-the-record comment that obviously would have come from someone in the White House press office assigned to promote the press release)
- Their own past opinion pieces
- Reuters.com
- WhiteHouse.gov
- Online govt statistics
- CNN.com
- NeurIPS' blog
- Columbia Business School blog
- Matthew Yglesias' blog
- Greg Lukanioff's blog
I could have found those sources based on vague memories of tweets I've seen by following journalists on Bluesky and a few hours of googling. I suspect they did the same, except they used X instead.
There are very few American newspapers left that have actual reporters in the field. The New York Times and the Washington Post are almost the only ones left. The result is that most stories begin from some press release. Look at the Washington Post right now.
- "Trump, European Union reach trade deal with 15% tariffs" - from a press release.
- "Israel to let more aid trucks into Gaza, under pressure over hunger crisis Israel said..." - press release
- "Denied federal flood relief, a Maryland town is left on its own" - actual reporter coverage of regional news.
- "Trump’s imaginary numbers, from $1.99 gas to 1,500 percent price cuts" - desk work, rehash of existing info.
For most other newspapers, it's even worse. Few if any boots on the ground.
"News is what someone doesn't want published. All else is publicity"
It is not the fourth branch of government anymore.
Somebody should do that for social media.
I know some Dutch newspapers that didn't have any. It was mostly the free local papers that did.
Edit: these papers are still around, I just don't know if they still don't have classifieds because I don't read any papers anymore. The whole idea of getting a dead tree delivered is kinda old fashioned to me.
Yes. There was a time when newspapers were the place to list ads. They made money hand over fist.
A lot of people claim to be journalists and yet lack a fundamental understanding of journalistic principles and best practices.
Even if someone is blatantly trying to deny or turn the story, they may give you information you didn’t have before (and that they were unlikely to give you absent publication pressure).
It’s a superpower to be able to say ‘I have words written. Now what would you like to tell me?’
I enjoy reading Krugman so much now because he seems to be having so much fun now that he doesn't have the weight of the New York Times editors on him.
The NYT pushed them out because they made fat salaries, money that could, in the company's view, be used to pay for cheaper and younger labor, among other cost-saving measures.
I particularly enjoyed this bit of nihilism:
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/enshittification-and-the-...
>Hell hath no fury like a tech god scorned
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-washington-post-is-dying-je...
Funny how you grow to become the richest or second-richest man in the world, only to kiss ass to a bully.
If the goal was to have more control over the narrative in this country and influence news reporting and public opinion in support of Jeff's ambitions, I think there's an argument to be made that he's accomplishing that as we speak.
My hunch is it was due to Amazon's attempt to win a majority of the work in the JEDI tender.
WashPo was bought during the height of the JEDI tender, along with Bezos's shift in domicile to Washington DC, Amazon HQ2, and Amazon's opening of the Crystal City and expansion of the Reston city campus all happened during that tender.
“Day 2 is stasis. Followed by irrelevance. Followed by excruciating, painful decline. Followed by death. And that is why it is always Day 1.”
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/2016-letter-to...
Same with that mission/vision crap that they spend tons on for a fancy workshop and then it gets framed on the wall and nobody ever looks at it again.
If you look at Russia, you see being an oligarch is particularly dangerous in an authoritarian society. You fall out of a window. You can't get permits for anything, your contracts get canceled. Some average rando can be part of the #resistance and not face consequences because nobody cares but if you are that visible you're vulnerable.
Bezos doesn't want all the space-related contracts to go to Elon and SpaceX.
I mean, unless the subscription number is way down or revenue has dropped significantly (which the article does not seem to mention), none of this matters, which is exactly what Bezos wants.
Bezos cancels planned endorsement of Harris: 300,000 paid subscribers cancel in period up to election. (400,000 new paid subscribers over the period, but they offered significant promotional discounts)
Bezos tweets change to opinion policy: 75,000 paid subscribers cancel within four days
With in the order of 2.5 million paid subscribers before all this started that's significant losses.
Edit: Source is https://www.npr.org/2025/02/28/nx-s1-5312819/washington-post...
I'm sure it will die right after Bitcoin and Google Search and Adam Sandler movies.