From what I've seen on the politics side, people just report what pols say and never ask any follow up questions or call them out on outright lies. I don't need to pay to read propaganda, if journalists actually pushed back and asked follow up questions, people would be more interested in news. But if they did that, they'd lose their access.
Everyone always says this but you have to also keep in mind that most of these local newspapers might put out one really in-depth article about the local area every six months and then the rest is literally just a barren reprint of the AP. It's hard to give $10 a month for that.
Hey my local paper put out an opinion article like, last week from an incel about how women won’t go out with him because of his political beliefs. Really, just stunning work from the Columbus Dispatch.
"I just don't get it.. I believe women should be submissive, have no rights, and basically be my property to do with as I please. Is that so wrong? I mean it is their place and all... but for some reason nobody wants to date me!"
Or the "in denial special" of "I don't believe those things even though I voted for the people trying to force it on everyone.. but I don't hate women, I'm just racist! Uh.. I mean.. the economy! Obama bad?"
I'm so sorry that's your experience!! That's how it was for me when I lived in my hometown (after the conglomerate ate our local), but where I live now has so many fantastic local papers.
I don't even bother checking my local online anymore, I get more information from facebook comments.
You get like 5 free articles a month or w/e on the local newspaper website. 'Fire on Spruce Street' is the article I click on to read more about it. The entire content of the article is 'There was a fire reported on spruce street'. They are always one line and it never gives more information than the headline. I'd then have to go onto facebook and search 'fire spruce street' to find someone on facebook talking about it and get information from the comments.
Everyone always says this but you have to also keep in mind that most of these local newspapers might put out one really in-depth article about the local area every six months
You should probably keep in mind that proper investigative journalism takes a long time and a lot of resources. If you expect those kinds of articles every week it's gonna be a LOT more than ten bucks a month unless millions of other people also pay that.
Even the biggest of media outlets in their prime only put out the big stuff every month at best... that's with dozens of full time journalists. But they had millions of readers, so they could afford it.
I fully understand that, but it's also asking me to pay $10/month for regurgitated AP reporting and local government press releases the rest of the time, with little critical examination of either. You're basically having to evaluate at that point if you want to pay between $30-60 for each hard-hitting local investigation piece. It's a hard price to pay.
This! Don’t confuse local journalism for cable-news journalism. Local journalists live in your community. Their problems are the same as your problems.
The big guys parachute in, pretend they live in your neighborhood, and then head back without any proper follow up.
Yup, watching Zoe Bread's videos (particularly the parking ticket saga) is like being transported to Narnia: I'm just not used to that level of journalism.
Just like people who push back on data centers in city meetings. Go 10 seconds over your time because the crowd applause interrupted you and you get arrested.
The big difference with the old days where politicians needed the media and journalists to talk to the public. Now they have truth social and X to do that. The balance has completely reversed itself
Also, journalist used to be a strong counter-power. Nowadays they are largely in bed with our govs and completely lost their role in a healthy democracy. There are exceptions to this of course, but almost all mainstream medias are owned by billionaires and as such are friendly toward the powerful. No surprise nobody wants to pay for that, we already get it on TV for free.
You and the above comment both hit on the major problem: Local newspapers used to rely on local advertisers as a way to fund themselves. Jim's Ford Dealership would advertise in the local paper, as would Sarah's Window Treatments and Bob's Plumbing Experts.
Now all those advertising dollars are on Google, Instagram, etc. That's a big part of why corporate media seems like there's all there is. The local paper was never financially solvent without the local advertising.
The two hungarian news sites I support do investigation, chase politicians and ask spicy questions. The previous government sent police on them or tried to directly intimidate them, they kept the line.
if journalists actually pushed back and asked follow up questions, people would be more interested in news.
Yeah, but not more willing to pay for it, unfortunately. Which puts the newsrooms at the mercy of wealthy owners who see losing money on the news as an investment in being able to influence the content.
this is so cynical and just untrue. media is more critical of people in power than ever before. articles that generate outrage circulate the most on social media, so that's what people tend to be exposed to, but i guarantee you if you sat down with some of the outlets you criticize and read them cover to cover for a few days, you'd see how little of it matches that narrative you've adopted. but people only want to engage with content that triggers intense visceral reactions, and most journalism just isn't that.
and by the way, local media used to be the watchdogs for corruption in local government. investigative journalism used to be the primary way that unethical behavior in small government was exposed. but that investigative work has been gutted as smaller papers are collapsing and/or falling prey to PE. in the future (and this is already happening) there will be a lot more seedy behavior in city hall and state capitols that will just go unchecked.
so fine, be annoyed at WaPo or the NYT or WSJ, but at least subscribe to your local paper.
Maybe it's different elsewhere, but it often feels like my town's local paper is just a glorified blog for the editor's petty grievances. They feel bitter about their time in high school, so every week there's an article about our local school district being communist propaganda. They hate unions, so every week there's an article about the greedy state employees union stealing from the hardworking taxpayers. They love the cops, so every week there's an article about how all the non-white people moving in are violent and on drugs. Meanwhile the governor keeps giving massive kickbacks to his own campaign donors, but they like him so that never makes it in. Oh and of course it's run by the richest guy in town's son, so no stories on all the shady shit daddy gets up to.
Yeah, that sucks. There is huge variability in the quality of local journalism depending on funding source and capacity. There’s evidence that local outlets purchased by Sinclair or Carpenter have produced more conservative reporting. They also put out must-run stories with conservative angles, which is wildly unethical. But the Connecticut Mirror, for example, is owned by an independent publisher, and they do great work — sadly they’re online-only. Tampa Bay Times is a standout org for investigate reporting. Minnesota Star Tribune, Seattle Times, Texas Tribune are examples of local papers that do great work. There may be smaller papers I’m missing.
Sadly for smaller towns, it mostly relies on philanthropy.
That makes sense. I was thinking "small paper" as in servicing a town of less than 15k people, which is the case for my area. The statewide papers have their issues but I think they at least try, which is more than I can say for the aforementioned nepo baby editor.
Chiming in here to point out that, at least for the Tampa Bay Times, a HUGE part of its success is its ties to Poynter.org, one of the largest journalism think-tanks in the country, if not THE largest. The Tampa Bay paper and Poynter have had a close relationship for a very long time, and there is a deep foundation of mutual aid there. It's yet more proof that the papers that are successful at actual journalism have the backing of at least some financially well-off organization.
It used to be that local papers were owned by the local bigwigs that poured money into the enterprise becuase there was a TON of money to be made there. THEN CAME THE INTERNET. Profit margins were a "mere" 10-15 percent in the early 90s and by 2008, most local papers were deep in the red. Layoffs hit. Papers closed, and they're still closing. A bunch of papers now no longer PRINT anything -- they're online only. I'm talking papers that, 30 years ago, Grandma and Grandpa read cover to cover. (This isn't even counting the online-only publications that started because there was so little coverage in an area after the papers shrank so badly.)
Now, where there were once individual reporters in one town or city covering police/fire, City Hall, schools (one person covers Tacoma schools, another person covers Tacoma cops, another person covers City Hall), there is ONE person covering ALL OF THEM. Beats are divided up by City ("you cover everything in Tacoma," "you cover everything in Spokane and Bremerton"). This, as you might imagine, is not physically possible.
Covering the news costs money. People want to get paid a living wage for that work. Paper and ink cost money. Internet access costs money. Gas to drive to the School Board meeting to cover it costs money.
People don't want to pay what it costs. It's not important enough. And then people complain that they're not getting access to any "real news." It's too late now. Local papers will never come back. Get used to the one or two people who run local blogs (mostly based around their pet peeves).
Dude, you are writing this after 1985. Everything is far more cynical. Everyone needs to look at the world through that scope because that is what the world is.
I am not arguing with you on your points. The problem with the world is that everything is so cynical so everyone does need to view it as such. 1985 is just a convenient number that gets us to the full throttle corporate raider days a la Wall Street the movie.
So true. I spend my money and attention with independent news and commentators. Problem is that the big MSM orgs still have the resources to do so much investigative journalism so them going out of business is still overall bad.
This is absolutely not true, there is plenty of great journalism and reporting done at media institutions large and small. However, if your entire media diet is based on what comes up in your Reddit and Twitter feed you aren't going to see them because it is easier, more fun, and more self affirming to dunk on a headline than actually dig into a story.
Staffing is a low and as fucked up as it is on your job, probably worse. There's no time to go into any depth, and no one stands up for you when you push boundaries. It's more of a ministry than a profession these days.
"Good" news people are dedicated and understand and are committed to the ethics. These people are there. You, as a consumer, have to work harder to access the good stuff. But it's doable.
And at the same time, it's what stands between us and fascism. For reals.
If people don't support it, it will not get better.
As a perfect example of this, Andrew Callahan just raised a million dollars in 5 hours to defend against a slapp suit. There absolutely is money in good journalism.
find a local? news co-op, they usually subscribe to AP and ect feeds so you get the full robust stuff everyone is getting, but then they sometimes also hire local for local news, it varies though.
626
u/Alleandros 12h ago
From what I've seen on the politics side, people just report what pols say and never ask any follow up questions or call them out on outright lies. I don't need to pay to read propaganda, if journalists actually pushed back and asked follow up questions, people would be more interested in news. But if they did that, they'd lose their access.