Journalism, particularly at the highest level, is about raw power

I agree that we need a new way to fulfill the same function that control over distribution used to accomplish. But the nuclear bomb is here to stay, too. That doesn't mean its invention was necessarily a positive development.

Also, and hopefully you already know this and didn't intend to imply otherwise, but social media is just one way of using the internet.

Which means that there's a third option: learning to use the internet better, in a less harmful and destructive way. And "Big Media" are obviously not the only group of people with access to that third option.

edit: also, "so their accounts reach as many people as @realdonaldtrump" is a very very low bar. that account now reaches zero people.

I'd suggest to read Hunter S. Thompson's obituary on Nixon

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-...

"It was all gibberish, of course. Nixon was no more a Saint than he was a Great President. He was more like Sammy Glick than Winston Churchill. He was a cheap crook and a merciless war criminal who bombed more people to death in Laos and Cambodia than the U.S. Army lost in all of World War II, and he denied it to the day of his death. When students at Kent State University, in Ohio, protested the bombing, he connived to have them attacked and slain by troops from the National Guard.

Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism -- which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful."

Journalism should not just stick 'to facts'. Journalism's objective is to speak truth to power by whatever means necessary and to bring truth to light. This often requires to get into the dirt. Facts you can find on Wikipedia or in the phone book, that's not what journalism is about. Good journalism is adversarial. The tech sector dislikes this in particular because they rely on the fact that they are not perceived as centres of power.

>As journalists, we all view this as a horrifying assault on the public’s right to know, and on our own status as brave defenders of the public good. And that is all true, for what it’s worth. But this is about power. We need to take some back, lest the rich and powerful run away from one of the last forces restraining them.

It's interesting that they seem to consider themselves the only ones with pure hearts.

I'm not sure why I should assume their hearts are so pure. Or if I assume their hearts are pure, why not Elon Musk's (mentioned in the article)?

I do appreciate the role of the news media in creating a multi-polar rather than uni-polar world. But man, they really do think highly of themselves.

I don't know how you could write all this realpolitik stuff, and still think you yourself are immune to it (outside of solipsism).

Nope, sorry. The extent to which Trump has been openly racist and inflammatory, providing motivation and boldness for various white supremacy hate groups, is severe and greatly damaging to US society - the damage and racism divide lasting far beyond the end of his term as president.

It is absolutely appropriate for a reporter to question Trump’s overt racist behavior. That’s not editorializing, that’s just basic due diligence and engagement with the open fact of Trump’s behavior. Trump put it on the agenda by behaving in racist ways.

It’s unacceptable for you to make a false equivalence with someone “editorializing” - it further entrenches racism if you act like calling out racism is inappropriate because it is “editorializing.” That’s just making excuses for categorically overt racists like Trump to go unchecked.

The article describes what's wrong with media, unless I've blanked on some ripping satire. What serious journalist would ever let themselves be quoted lamenting, "The subjects are winning." It's like her extravagance knows no bounds or something.

The headline occurs mid article and it's a good choice. When writing is about power, its job becomes to deliver narrative in that power struggle, and that means it's no longer good. Who wants to read that? Maybe these institutions are losing their influence because they suck at the one thing they were supposed to do well, which was produce compelling, brave, and thoughtful writing that people wanted to read so much they would tolerate advertisers. Maybe if they were more interesting, more people would read them?