The Press Has Forgotten Its Job—and We’re Paying for It

“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”1 — Thomas Jefferson

Freedom of the press is extremely important, and there has been a lot of debate about this subject lately. The founding fathers of this country were keenly aware of its significance.

Thomas Jefferson, while he was a minister in France, wrote:

“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”2

John Adams, Samuel Adams, and James Bowdoin included language about the importance of a free press in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which predated the U.S. Constitution and is among the oldest functioning written constitutions still in effect in the world3:

“The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth.”4

And, of course, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”5

If the free press is so important to democracy, here is my issue: why are news outlets not taking their journalistic duty seriously?

I recently read an opinion piece by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal lamenting what is happening with The Washington Post. I don’t always agree with her, but this was a strong piece. In it, she highlighted something critical about journalism:

“I fear sometimes that few people really care about journalism, but we are dead without it. Someday something bad will happen, something terrible on a national scale, and the thing we’ll need most, literally to survive, is information. Reliable information—a way to get it, and then to get it to the public. That is what journalism is, getting the information.”

After quoting Jefferson on the importance of a free press, she added:

“In any case, he was certain a free press was safer for the republic than what would otherwise become government censorship and propaganda. This is so self-evidently true—and so pertinent to this moment!—that it becomes obvious that the capital of the most powerful nation in the world, operating without a big main newspaper to monitor it, is a danger and a threat.”

We don’t really know what the future holds for The Washington Post or the direction Jeff Bezos, its owner, will take the paper—but the problems go beyond just The Washington Post.

Everyone knows that the quality of news and journalism in this country and around the world is diminishing. It seems that real news outlets and journalists are trying to compete with social media influencers and podcast hosts to stay relevant. I’m not sure why that is, when publications such as The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, BBC, and CBS should stay above the fray and focus on their vital role: keeping citizens informed through real journalism, thereby protecting the free press.

Now it seems news outlets are all about clickbait in order to make money. They are fixated on the current political environment, highlighting every move by Republicans and Democrats—often focusing on trivial matters. Some stories are hardly significant: Senator John Fetterman wearing shorts and a hoodie in Congress, President Obama taking about “aliens are real,” or Trump’s opinion on Bad Bunny. Even respected newspapers fall for this nonsense. For example, the cover of The Economist for the week of January 24–30 showed Trump shirtless riding a polar bear. Really? Then they complain about being targeted by government officials and being called “fake news.”

The solution is simple: just do your investigative journalism and stop trying to mimic what others on the internet are doing. The Megyn Kellys, Don Lemons, and Tucker Carlsons of the world are motivated by profit, pushing their side of the story. Real journalism should provide balanced, accurate information about what is happening in the country so citizens can make informed decisions.

Sadly, many news outlets are failing. Some endorse specific candidates, while others, like MSNBC, Fox News, or even the BBC, produce misleading content. For example, BBC’s Panorama edited two sections of a speech together, making it appear that Trump directly encouraged his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.6 The speech didn’t need editing—but I suppose it wasn’t good enough or “clickbait” enough.

If news outlets continue down this path instead of elevating their journalism to higher standards, they deserve the label of “fake news.”

News outlets need to return to the days when The New York Times published the Pentagon Papers7, when The Washington Post uncovered the Watergate scandal8, or, better yet, when the Miami Herald and journalist Julie Brown pursued the 2008 sex trafficking story surrounding Jeffrey Epstein9—a story that exposed him and many others, as we continue to hear about today. 

There is still hope. I recently read an article in The Wall Street Journal reporting:

“Four days before Donald Trump’s inauguration last year, lieutenants to an Abu Dhabi royal secretly signed a deal with the Trump family to purchase a 49% stake in their fledgling cryptocurrency venture for half a billion dollars, according to company documents and people familiar with the matter. The buyers would pay half up front, steering $187 million to Trump family entities. The deal with World Liberty Financial, which hasn’t previously been reported, was signed by Eric Trump, the president’s son. At least $31 million was also slated to flow to entities affiliated with the family of Steve Witkoff, a World Liberty co-founder who weeks earlier had been named U.S. envoy to the Middle East, the documents said.”10

Why aren’t news outlets following up and analyzing what The Wall Street Journal revealed? Instead, we continue to hear about the Super Bowl halftime show and whether it was “good” or “bad.”

Something is clearly wrong with journalism today. News outlets need to correct their course quickly if they want to preserve freedom of the press and protect our democracy.

  1. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-09-02-0209 ↩︎
  2. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0047 ↩︎
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Massachusetts ↩︎
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Massachusetts ↩︎
  5. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ ↩︎
  6. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj9yp7v37jyo ↩︎
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers ↩︎
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal ↩︎
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_K._Brown ↩︎
  10. https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/spy-sheikh-secret-stake-trump-crypto-tahnoon-ea4d97e8?st=R5a7TN&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink ↩︎

112 thoughts on “The Press Has Forgotten Its Job—and We’re Paying for It”

  1. Journalism hasn’t taken its job seriously in years. There are tabloid papers like “The Sun” who would put news of an all out war between Russian and China on page five and it would be a small article, yet the front page headline would be about Taylor Swift buying new underwear. I totally agree here, journalism needs to go back to when they took their roles seriously, reporting actual news and highlighting why those things are important.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you for your comment. Absolutely, between Taylor Swift and Sydney Sweeney, the news is turning into some kind of TikTok feed, trying to get people to focus on the unimportant while, in the meantime, important issues are not being reported. I know newspapers and TV news outlets need to make money, but their primary responsibility is to investigate and report what is going on in the world.

      Like

      Reply

  2. Speaking of Watergate, “Follow the money.” Click-bait is just the tip of the iceberg. One by one, media giants — Washington Post, CBS, CNN – are being bought out or coerced into the pro-Trump camp. I don’t believe the new mega-elite – Zuckerberg, Bezos, et al. – have any core politics; they are willing to say anything, do anything, if that’s where the money is. Pre-Trump, the media felt a lot of pressure to conform to leftwing views, but it was decentralized levers of power, basically a university-driven cult of newly defined progressivism. What is new is that we now have a president using the full force of the federal government – FBI, DOJ, regulatory leverage – to exert that control over the media. Considering that a new class of gazillionaires who care only about money and power now control the media, and will increasingly do so in the age of AI, I don’t share your “still hope” optimism. But I’ll keep reading your blog in the hopes that I can catch a little bit of your light 😊

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Great points. Now, with Paramount buying Warner Bros., we’ll see what happens to CBS and CNN. Those billionaires will go left or right depending on who is in the White House. With Rolex giving the president a gold desk clock and Tim Cook giving him a statue made of glass and 24-karat gold, it’s clear they will sell their souls if necessary. I’m always hopeful because, as Marcus Tullius Cicero said: “No power is strong enough to be lasting if it labors under the weight of fear.”

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    1. I’m with you, and actually they should go back to when the news was reported in the late afternoon and broadcasting ended before midnight, with the national anthem as the cue that the day was over. That would be awesome. All the extra time is filled with garbage to keep us entertained.

      Like

      Reply

  4. Thank you for this post. What’s happening in media is scary, but we need to know. I tend to limit my intake of negative news and hate when they sensationalize but I do skim a daily summary from 1440 and sometimes dig deeper if I feel able and interested. I did not know about BBC and hope The Guardian and PBS maintain some integrity.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome. Thank you for sharing about 1440. I didn’t know about them, so I’m going to check it out. The BBC issue was really unnecessary because there was no need to edit anything that was said during the January 6 incident. The narrative was clear as it was, and people should be able to come to their own conclusions. ProPublica is pretty good with its investigative reporting.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  6. Such a great post, Edward!
    I’m with you…. Hear, hear!…… “we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”2
    This whole thing is outlandish and social media is out of line with their clickbait out outlandish claims. Just the other day I though (like I think about our government), when is all of this going to be called out?!
    “Why aren’t news outlets following up and analyzing what The Wall Street Journal revealed?”
    Sheesh!! 🙄

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Cindy. I know it’s pretty sad, but there are a few voices calling out these issues. I think Peggy Noonan did a good job calling out what is happening with The Washington Post and how it is going to affect reporting in the capital.

      We’ll see where that Wall Street Journal investigation into the dealings with the prince will go, probably not too far.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  7. Hi Edward, I have been involved directly through employment with a large firm with the whole fake journalism concept. That was when I understood its power and injustice. The government representations involved have yet to be brought to justice. There are no ethics or morals in any profession or employment anymore. My disillusionment has just grown and grown 💔

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. I have to agree with you that ethics is seen as something unimportant these days. I was surprised when I read that a female lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, resigned after revelations that she accepted several gifts from Jeffrey Epstein and called him “Uncle Jeffrey.” As a lawyer, she should have known better, but again, some people are forgetting about ethics.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  8. The news outlets are just giving us what we ask for. If we don’t ask for hard nosed news, we can’t expect to get it. I am sure there are plenty of ‘real’ journalists still out there, but Fox News, CNN, etc. are not looking to pay them to produce the meaty stuff. They give us what we ask for.

    I get so discouraged, I just hang up the news all together. Sometimes I look for ‘real stuff’ on NPR, or BBC America. But I’m sure even those have more slant than I look for. As you said, there has always been a slant to everything…but America seems to be given only 2 choices anymore. Liberal/Left/Democratic/Socialist/Woke vs. Conservative/Right/Fascist/White/Republican. Those of us who dwell in the middle and love our country are left searching for the truth.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. That’s true. They are pushing what the audience wants. As long as people are watching, they will continue to push insanity. I think at least the actual newspapers are okay. I know people don’t want to read them and prefer online news, but the quality of newspapers, at least The Economist and the WSJ, is much better. I’m looking forward to the day when a third or fourth party rises in this country and starts taking power from the two we have now. There’s too much power and control between Democrats and Republicans. We need to get others in play so we can have real compromises.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. The news that is reported shouldn’t be “what we ask for“. That’s why journalist should live up to a code of integrity and produce the news. Give us the information. Give us the facts. Yes it’s true. Some people like the National Inquire, etc., but that doesn’t mean that we have to lower our standards to serve a portion of the public.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  10. I enjoyed this post, as I do with most of your offerings. Media feeds, talking points, their analysts are all “handed” to them from a singular source.
    Independent journalism has very inherent risks, as we have witnessed over the years. And the highest number of deaths in conflict zones.
    I think many people have lost trust in their new providers when we witness their complicity in promoting unjust wars, or bending to government pressure to stick to the narrative. No one enjoys being lied to.
    But this is not a new phenomenon. Joseph Pulitzer used sensationalism to greater effect to help push the US into a war with Spain and the Phillipines.
    It is almost impossible for the casual observer to decipher the lies and extricate even a morsel of truth.
    But I think their is still some hope for free news sources out there. But the gates are closing quickly.
    Great post, Edward.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Nigel. I agree with you, and as long as news outlets are owned by big corporations and billionaires who bend easily under pressure, the news will continue to highlight only the side that benefits them and crush the rest. I’m also hopeful because a lot of newspapers are going nonprofit to protect journalism.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    1. Yeah, that makes no sense because he said he had already interviewed his opponent twice. So technically, Talarico owes him another interview if they’re so concerned about fairness. But of course, the issue with Talarico is that he actually has the potential to flip, so they’re not licking that.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  12. Another home run, Edward. We need to get you on a national civics speaking tour.

    If my memory serves, I believe you made reference to Jefferson’s ‘the government we deserve’ quote a couple weeks ago. I wonder if that applies to the press as well.

    I’m not one that believes that a biased press is a new phenomenon (there is a reason we have newspapers with names like the Illinois Republican and Arkansas Democrat, after all), but we know there was a period with some level of standards. That said, when we all run to our preferred glorified propaganda arm to feed us whichever flavor of bias we’re comfortable with, I suppose it isn’t a surprise that those institutions change to serve that market to keep up with the Joneses.

    It feels a lot like our previous discussion about our political environment. We all complain about the state of government, but when the rubber meets the road, we turn in a 98.6% re-election rate. Perhaps it’s an ‘us’ problem before we get to the journalism issue.

    I loved your thoughts here!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Scott. Now you’ve got me thinking about the “government we deserve” quote and your last comment about the “us” problem. I want to say maybe, but then we have billionaires buying newspapers and news channels, controlling the narrative. I guess if we don’t allow billionaires to buy entities like news outlets, we could be violating something somewhere. Interesting problem set.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Oh, please don’t think I’m presenting a silver bullet argument at all. As you say, its a real set of issues. Narrative control is a major issue, and now it’s powered by personally tailored algorithms.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. Algorithms, that’s one of the reasons I avoid reading news online. I know that at some point I’ll need to move from print newspapers to the online version, but at least they offer the option to deliver the newspaper as a PDF via email, so I can read it on a tablet if I get to that point.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

  13. I am impressed with WSJ’s coverage. There’s also ProPublica out there doing some great investigative work. And Wired is another surprise with their coverage. I’m sad how easily the big fall, but I think it’s not a coincidence because, as I read in an NYT article this morning, the uber-rich falsely believe they are untouchable.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. ProPublica is outstanding. I have read some of their reporting, and it’s just amazing the level of investigation they are doing. For a time, I thought that the WSJ was too conservative, but they are actually pretty balanced.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    1. Thank you very much. Yeah, a lot of institutions are giving in under pressure. My guess is that many of them are too dependent on the government for financial support, and they don’t have many options, which should be a lesson for them to start moving away from the federal government.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  15. Oh, this is great timing Edward. So much good stuff here. As a one time small/medium town newspaper reporter . . . I have few thoughts. 1.) Why are news outlets not taking their journalistic duty seriously? Like most things, I think they’re out there, but the number has definitely diminished. Too few newspapers, too many billionaire owners/big media conglomerates limiting their staffs instead of giving them free reign to do their jobs. 2.)“Four days before Donald Trump’s inauguration last year” –A reminder of a journalism truth. Always follow the money. It will lead you to the truth. 3.) Why do new media focus on the Super Bowl halftime show instead of Wall Street Journal piece. It’s easy. It will naturally get interest. The cryptocurrency story takes time, resources . . . and money. 4.) You didn’t even talk about Bezos cutting back significantly on The Washington Post’s resources. I worry that it will soon be a shell of its former self. Unfortunately, I think media will continue to change for a long time until things shake out and we get control on ownership, dollars, etc. Great piece, well said sir.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you very much, Brian. I think big corporations and billionaires have a lot to do with the mess we’re in now. The Peggy Noonan opinion piece went into detail about Bezos and the Washington Post crisis. It’s upsetting how everything is a business transaction for Bezos and others like him, without taking into consideration how their actions affect others. In this case, great journalists are losing their jobs, and I’m sure many of them are losing faith in the profession and moving on to other jobs.

      Like you said, there aren’t that many newspapers out there. Bezos wants more government contracts, so he’ll do whatever it takes to get them. I think billionaires need to stay away from the news business, and newspapers need to move to a nonprofit model so they have more control over what they cover. I’m sure journalists have ideas about how to keep newspapers relevant, but billionaires making decisions behind closed doors without journalists’ input is no bueno.

      Yeah, I understand that it’s easier to keep the halftime show story alive—talking about Bad Bunny’s lyrics, his anti-American sentiments, and how the government wants the FCC to fine the NFL. It’s all part of the short attention span social media is creating. But there’s a long list of topics that need investigation and reporting, stories that are far more important than the halftime show, which feels like a distraction tactic to keep people away from real problems. Journalists should be all over those instead of following the president around to capture any missteps going up or down the Air Force One stairs or dissecting every Truth Social post.

      I’m just saying, talented journalists are out there, and I think we can do better.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

          1. Oh I worked at small town newspapers. I covered local government, cops, development, local features. They were all small things in the grand scheme of things but important to the people who cared about them. The internet was taking off, but even then you could see the writing on the wall. Pay was abysmal. Staffs were small. There was one key difference. The politicians and authorities tended to believe their own lies. There were lies. But they weren’t in such great number. The animosity toward others (especially those weaker) wasn’t what it is now either. The hatred toward others is so real, out for everyone to see. However— one good thing: In many ways, blogging has become the modern press. There’s hope!

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

            1. Awesome! You covered all the important things. There is a lot of good local journalism in our metropolitan area. They have uncovered so much corruption at the city and county levels. It’s pretty amazing the work they’re doing. The hatred is definitely out of control and is now out in the open during TV interviews and public debates. It’s amazing how politicians are losing grace toward others and are ready to crucify anyone, anywhere, without hesitation.

              Liked by 2 people

              Reply

  16. I agree with your take on the news. They are failing us. I graduated from the University of Washington as a journalism major in the 1980s. A group of lived at the state capitol and were assigned to newspapers across the state. We had to turn in our stories to our professor — who was a retired editor — before sending them to our papers. If I didn’t have a fair story, reporting both sides of an issue, I was told to go back out and redo my story.

    That doesn’t happen today. I’ve read that journalism schools tell their students that the ends justify the means. They are turning out activists rather than journalists.

    There was a book I read decades ago that addresses the issue with news. It’s called
    “Who Killed CBS: The Undoing of America’s Number One News Network.” You can find it on Amazon. If I remember correctly, it talks about the commercialization of news to be a money maker rather than a service.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. I found the book and added it to my reading list. Thank you for the recommendation.

      You’re right about activism in the news. CBS and BBC are the latest to get into trouble for pushing coverage to one side of the political spectrum by cutting corners instead of staying balanced. I’m not sure why they’re doing that. The truth will come out when you present the facts.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. I’m so glad you bought the book. I read it when it first came out. I’m going to order it again. News became a seller of soap rather than what Edward R. Morrow and the early greats stood for.
        I can’t say the sensationalism is on one side or the other anymore. It seems most reporters have an agenda. You need to filter their “news” through that. Also, by what stories are left out is just as telling as what they are reporting on.

        Do you remember when a newsroom quit the Epstein story and a lowly producer was fired? I don’t remember which major news broadcast station it was.

        What I do know is that one my friend’s daughter’s got fired for making that clip. She thought it was newsworthy. The daughter was a friend of my kids, lived in the high desert above Palm Springs and did home schooling through a Stanford University program. Smart girl but wanting to let the world know about Jeffrey Epstein in 2018 or 2019 killed her career.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. Yeah, I think ABC and CBS were involved in that incident, but I can’t remember the names. Wow, what a tragedy—it was probably devastating for her. I hope she found a platform to continue her work somewhere.

          Absolutely, when reading or watching the news, it’s good to know whether the outlet is left-leaning or right-leaning, so you can understand where they’re coming from.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

  17. I’m not sure what you mean by “correct their course.” The problem is we have a chaos agent running the country … emboldened by other chaos agents. They are creating blizzards of non-news to try to hide their incompetence. I feel sorry for true journalists. They are not the cause of the chaos but they appear to be getting the blame.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Good point about the chaos. It’s making everything worse, but news outlets have been going down rabbit holes since at least the end of the Clinton administration. I blame it on the 24/7 news cycle obsession. They just feel the need to fill every minute with whatever they can find, most of which is not important, and that’s when they start talking ad nauseam about every little move politicians make. I think they need to go back to investigative journalism and report the things that really matter.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

        1. That’s what I did—I just stopped watching cable news. I’m not against news outlets, because at least we still have a free press. There are countries that don’t have it, but I think we should be doing better by removing big corporations and billionaires from managing these news companies. They are treating the news like social media, and I think the news needs to stay above that. I think the alternative is what some newspapers are doing, moving to a nonprofit model.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

    1. That’s a great point, Terry. Back when I was watching cable news, I hated when they dissected a shooting and brought in “experts” to walk the viewers through what happened. They’d cover the same thing for days, and I thought the same thing back then: a criminal is watching and learning from this free class that the news is offering.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  19. You may have heard that free speech is going out of the window in England with prison sentences happening for social media comments. And not even speech, people in my city have been jailed for praying in their heads on the street near abortion clinics. The sooner Starmer is gone the better.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Oh wow, I didn’t know that. For social media comments, that’s extreme. I read that Starmer is in a bit of trouble with the Jeffrey Epstein thing. I guess the Labor party might lose the next election then.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Ex Prince, Andrew, is the one who was best pals with Epstein. He has just been arrested for sharing confidential UK trade business with him. I don’t believe anything will much happen to a member of the monarchy. Imagine being a prisoner in one of your mummy’s prisons …

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. It was all over the news yesterday. I received a few notifications on my phone. King Charles probably saw this coming and decided to remove his royal titles. You’re probably right, and he might get a light punishment.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

  21. I grew up in a household where watching broadcast news was a reliable means of staying in touch, current and aware of important issues within our own country and globally. Sadly, as you point out, reliable – non-sensational – journalism is missing. You said this so well:
    “Now it seems news outlets are all about clickbait in order to make money. They are fixated on the current political environment, highlighting every move by Republicans and Democrats—often focusing on trivial matters.”
    Focusing on trivial matters and not reporting on the actual news of the day. I’ve become so very skeptical of “news” in general…I’m tired of feeling manipulated. Being baited to shift my focus and I like to think I’m a somewhat intelligent person. The more this plays out, the more I understand the manipulation of the masses in the U.S. Easy prey?
    Thank you for another timely piece, Edward. 💝

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Vicki. I know—it’s frustrating. The 24/7 news cycle has created a monster, where news outlets feel the need to keep us “informed” by babbling and recycling the same breaking news throughout the day. I’m glad I don’t have cable anymore.

      I hope you’re enjoying the beautiful 62 degree weather.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. It’s amazing – the weather today…and red flag warnings because of the wind and low humidity? Surprising!
        And you’re right…so frustrating – TV news. Paul and I tuned into what we thought was a trusted broadcast earlier this week – hoping to see good coverage about PB and the DOJ and we were shocked. Not a single peep or mention. Sigh…
        As always, appreciate your camaraderie, my friend! 💝

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

  22. From a political party that says it is all about freedom- they sure are going about it in all the wrong ways! I just hope we can recover from this once it is over! Maybe, wishful thinking, be better than we were before?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  23. Whenever power, deceit, and control games marry money interests, truth and freedom are compromised and neglected. They are no longer important when high-positioned people’s standards are far from the original vision of goodness for all. You explained it well! News outlets are supposed to be a means to inform and thus empower the people. A wonderful and profound post, Edward: much worth further reflection. Thank you for this informative reading. Very important, indeed! Light and blessings to you, always, my friend! ✨🙏

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. So true. It’s sad that we’ve come to that. At least we still have a free press in our countries. I know of countries where the press is banned and the government is the only source of information for the public. Thank you for reading and commenting, my friend.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  24. In Canada all the the TV stations are under the thumb of the government and do not report the truth, just like in a communist county.
    All of the major newspapers are either liberal or conservative.
    That is why I do not wast time on them
    I like the small independant ones on YouTube

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  25. I agree with so many comments here so I don’t want to say the same things. We realize that free speech and press are clearly not free. The restraints the special interest groups hold is clearly cutting off the air supply to certain stories and truths both good and bad.

    Excellent piece. Excellent points.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. So true, and I know that there are some bloggers doing great work out there. Heather Cox Richardson, an American historian, is doing fantastic work on Substack, but she doesn’t have the resources to investigate, she might in the future, since she is making a lot of money on that platform. Still, we need journalists supported by serious news outlets doing the hard work on the streets and inside the government to really shine a spotlight on big issues.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  28. Ed,

    Your defense of a free press is well taken. The republic cannot function without reliable information, and the historical examples you cite remind us that journalism has, at its best moments, strengthened constitutional order rather than weakened it.

    Where I would gently widen the frame is this: what we are witnessing may be less a forgetting of duty and more a distortion of incentives.

    The modern press operates inside a radically altered economic and technological architecture. Advertising collapsed, attention fragmented, algorithms reshaped distribution, and engagement became measurable in real time. Once performance could be tracked minute by minute, velocity began competing with depth — and velocity often wins.

    That does not excuse superficiality. It does, however, complicate the diagnosis.

    Cable commentary, personality-driven media, digital click economies, and legacy investigative institutions are frequently collapsed into one amorphous entity called “the media.” They are not structurally identical, and they do not operate under identical reward systems. The frustration many feel may be directed at one model while inadvertently condemning another.

    There is also a strategic risk in broad denunciation. A press under stress is not the same as a press without integrity. If public trust erodes indiscriminately, the vacuum is rarely filled by higher standards — it is filled by louder certainties.

    The question may not be whether journalism remembers its job, but whether the structures sustaining serious journalism are being intentionally preserved. Freedom of the press protects against government restraint. It does not guarantee economic alignment with civic purpose.

    If we want investigative rigor, patience, and balance to endure, those incentives must be engineered — and materially supported — rather than merely demanded.

    Your call for higher standards is important. The path forward may require structural reform as much as moral recommitment.

    Respectfully. Joe

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you very much, Joe, and I really appreciate the great points you made. I completely agree that there are structural problems, but to me, duty in the realm of the free press means that news outlets need to figure out a way to adapt to new structures and technologies, including the incentive structures, in order to keep delivering reliable news without lowering standards, morality or otherwise. It’s really hard to do, but they must do it. News organizations have many talented people who can make the necessary structural reforms while staying morally committed to the truth, no matter the consequences. Big corporations and billionaires who own some of these outlets are not really solving problems or upholding duty and morality; instead, they are chasing money, connections with powerful people, and, in most cases, personal agendas that have nothing to do with staying truthful and informing citizens. There’s nothing wrong with making money, good for them, but they should follow a higher calling. If they are not willing to do that, then they need to step aside and allow true believers to continue the march.

      Yes, the media as an entity is problematic. Cable news channels such as CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, among others, offering a mix of news, opinion shows, late-night comedy, social media presence, and political advertising, have created a monstrosity that I have no idea how to fix. I blame Ted Turner and his push for 24/7 news. Now that they have a 24/7 platform, by God, they feel the need to keep people entertained at all costs. 🤦🏻‍♂️

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  30. You are so right that something is wrong with journalism. I no longer trust legacy media: “Now it seems news outlets are all about clickbait in order to make money.” I only watch our state’s ABC-affiliate station is for local news and the weather forecast.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  31. Thank you for this article, Edward. It’s so important that you included the historical value of the free press and why it’s necessary. I agree with you one-hundred percent!

    Why do ‘real’ news outlets waste time with garbage news? I should never have to see one more AI image put out by the president and re-aired in my local news. Journalists are supposed to abide by a code of ethics – honest, authentic, intelligent, truthful, accurate, fact-based through credible sources, independent, impartial, objective, fair… They’re supposed to avoid sensationalism, selective omissions, opinions, and avoid giving or receiving gifts for information ….

    Should we blame their clickbait behavior on ourselves? Is it true that many Americans only look for shocking news? I’d hope most of us would behave like adults and try to focus on important information, instead of childish and weird stories.

    In August 2025, Pew Research Center put out an article about how Americans view journalists, which only adds to what you’re saying here: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2025/08/20/how-americans-view-journalists-in-the-digital-age/

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you for sharing that report, Rose. Absolutely! Influence has been diminishing for years now. I think social media and the constant push of fake images and information trying to pass as news are making things worse. I agree with you. They should follow a strict code of ethics. After all, if a free press is so important, why not conduct themselves as such?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  32. great article Edward. this is something that is near and dear to me as well. I have indeed noticed the drop in journalistic depth AND integrity in papers where it should not happen; especially the Wall Street Journal and Chicago Tribune. The only paper I can lean on now is Barron’s. But even they are starting to skirt into strange territory.

    One of the major problems we had is that for a long time during the Bush/Obama years, we had a literal desert of beat reporters. The people that were around essentially hooked on to the prevailing social optics of the time and newspapers themselves started to arbitrarily pick the “tone” of stories to run to satisfy their click quotas. I know there are varying viewpoints on this but this was my most immediate observation – a confluence of those two distinctly unjournalistic factors.

    I’ll leave it at that. But what i will end with is that with the rise of citizen journalism, we should be seeing a slow push back towards the clinical approach of journalism that we grew to expect. And most importantly, editorials and op-eds will have both their space in the paper with a counterpoint article to promote formal argument.

    Again, great article Edward – structure, premise/citations, articulation, conclusion…journalistic.

    Mike

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Mike. I need to check out Barron’s. I’ve seen some articles, but I’ve never really dug into them. I was spoiled by reading intelligence reports and worldwide reporting when I was in the Army, so I wasn’t paying too much attention to what the regular news was reporting. But you’re probably right about those years and the kind of reporting. It all seems one-sided, depending on which social aspect each outlet is focusing on instead of looking at the totality. I really like reading the opinion pieces and the letters people send to the editor. Very illuminating in terms of where people are.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    1. Thank you, Brad, and you’re absolutely right about the large corporations. I was commenting to others that some of the newspapers are moving to nonprofit models. That might be the way to go if they want to remain independent.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  34. Such an interesting post, Edward. It strikes me that we (the public) are part of this problem. We are so used to getting things for “free” (in quotes because we pay for it in other ways) on the Internet, we aren’t subscribing to the newspapers and organizations to help keep them healthy. Not sure of the chicken and the egg here but without a healthy subscriber base, the news outlets have become another “influencer.”

    What I love about Thomas Jefferson’s position is that he was thinking of what makes for the healthiest/strongest country and not what served his interests as a politician. Dang, we need more of that!

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Wynne. I debated paying for a newspaper subscription for a long time until I decided to start with The Economist (left-leaning) and then The Wall Street Journal Weekend Edition (right-leaning). I really don’t want to spend all day chasing news on the internet, so I’d rather pay for a physical paper and read the news without distractions. It’s so much better, and at least I’m contributing to keeping them alive, so to speak. While researching for this post, I found that some newspapers are moving to nonprofit models, which could solve a lot of the problems they’re facing today. Yeah, those Founding Fathers were onto something for sure.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

    2. That’s a terrific point, Wynne. The old saying, “you get what you pay for” is very true when it comes to news and journalism. I pay for a digital subscription to our local newspaper, and a newer national news site that’s an alternative to our larger national sites. I think it’s important to keep these sources healthy because there is so much misinformation out there.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  35. “Yellow journalism has always existed, and biased reporting as well. Note that many legacy newspapers have fallen over the past decade or more due to a business model that no longer supports them (In paper ads paid for all those well written stories.) Now that most people get their news from outlets mostly owned by corporations or billionaires (Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, etc.) expect them to produce news that they want to push their agendas. Why the Super Bowl over the Wall Street Journal? “If it bleeds it leads” was the old newspaper mantra. Unfortunately most of America is not interested by in-depth news articles. Driven to distraction and in need of reality show drama, the average information consumer is looking for the next shiny thing to pop into their feed.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. “The next shiny thing to pop into their feed”—so true. But those are the same ones getting upset about what’s going on in the country. It’s a weird loop for sure. They don’t want to read an in-depth news article, but they get all excited when they see a 10-second video. Just weird. Money rules, definitely, but some things need to stay at a high level, and I think the press is one of them. It’s too important to let it slide. Some newspapers are transitioning to non-profits, and I think that’s a positive sign.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. Assuming the video is not a deep fake or from an uncharted source.

        Journalism is under attack for its credibility, and this chips away at peoples support of the institution as well. I remember listening to an interview with Chuck Todd of “Meet the Press” ( Now having parted ways with NBC). The discussion was about engagement with viewers and how the industry had self inflicted some of the damage. He decried that large news organizations had cut staffing and coverage of stories at the grassroots level. We know that all politics (and news) is local. Viewers tend to watch more of what is directly related to their lives. If large outlets supported the local affiliates they would have eyeballs and ears to convert to national news stories and viewers that trusted the reporting.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. Yes, that’s true. Great point about the local news. There needs to be more collaboration between local outlets and journalists to cover local news, and then leave the larger outlets to focus on big investigative reporting. I know the Associated Press does a good job in that area, using local reporting to achieve a greater reach.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  36. Quite a statement, Edward. I think one might have added Fox and the grand scale misinformation that, to my mind, isn’t equally foisted into the public by the parties, and the decision by Jeff.B and his decision not to endorse a candidate for POTUS.

    His sterling reporters and commentators of long standing have fled the Washington Post in large numbers. Many independent journalists now write on Substack. The press is not gone, but has found a freedom of expression there that CBS’s Bari Weiss and Bezos did not permit.

    That said, the press is indeed in trouble. The government’s case against Don Lemon certainly doesn’t suggest that the administration wants to support the First Amendment.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

    1. Absolutely, we can add Fox and many others to the list because it’s getting worse every day. I think at least newspapers need to transition to non-profits and break free from corporations and billionaires who are so quick to bow to political pressure. Hopefully, what is happening will stop when this administration is gone, but news outlets need to review their operations and make changes to return to their core purpose. Independent journalists on Substack are fine, but they don’t have the resources to pursue the level of investigation needed to keep the government in check. We’ll see if things start to change after the 2028 elections. I’m still hopeful. Thank you, Dr. Stein.

      Liked by 5 people

      Reply

Leave a reply to byngnigel Cancel reply