Dem
47
GOP
53
CBS was once the home to Walter Cronkite, perhaps the most trusted journalist in America. Heck, maybe the most trusted person in America. These days, however, the network's reputation is not so sterling. Just this week, CBS News Czar (or whatever her formal title is) Bari Weiss showed her true colors yet again, allowing interview subject Benjamin Netanyahu to decide who would interview him on 60 Minutes (he chose Major Garrett). That does not exactly scream "journalistic integrity."
And next week, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert will come to an end; the official reason is "cost-cutting," but a great many Americans suspect that his termination was a sop to the Trump administration, so that it would not interfere with the then-pending-but-now-finished acquisition of CBS by the Ellison family. Maybe these Americans are right, and maybe they are wrong, but it largely doesn't matter. If viewers don't trust CBS, then they don't trust CBS. And right now, they don't trust CBS.
This is presumably why we got several letters yesterday like this one from reader C.Z. in Sacramento, CA:
Thanks so much for your item on journalism and the media, because it's a jungle out there now, and we need a reliable guide like you. I've started referring to CBS as "See BS" to remind myself not to put any faith in any "news" they broadcast now. It's sad that CNN will no longer be a reliable source of news. However, I was relieved to note that I have been relying on the remaining "good guys" for my information.
Obviously, C.Z. was responding to "There Are Green Shoots in the Media World," which got a lot of feedback, most of it very positive. Here's another message, from K.F. in Berea, KY:
Your topic about the changing media landscape hit home for this history teacher. For about 8 years there has been talk about the new Gilded Age and the prospect of a new Progressive Era. The changing means by which people get their news affords another example of this shifting dynamic. One can only hope that we are around to see the shape of this new era. The young people reading and viewing this content are the future voters that can create this new age. They may not vote now, but they surely will in the next 10 years or so. The hope is that more of them are absorbing this content than those that are being fed lies and drivel every day by Fox "News" and Tucker Carlson.
Since this is an issue that clearly concerns many readers, and since we're taking the weekend off, we thought we'd run a bunch more of the letters, particularly the ones on outlets we did not get to in our piece. And so:
D.C.W. in Fredericksburg, TX: Thanks for the rundown on some of the news sources. Three that we really like are:
- Aaron Parnas/the Parnas Perspective: We get his e-mail updates daily. He does about an 8-10 min. video rundown of the news "we need to know about" and a "Political Byte"-type newsletter below that. He is very, very good. Young, but experienced lawyer and now independent—I mean REALLY independent—journalist and aggregator of news. We just upgraded our subscription because we go to him right after Electoral-Vote.com daily. The personal touch of his videos is a nice thing, kind of reassuring that all is not lost yet.
- Joyce Vance/Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance: Excellent take on all things legal and political.
- Heather Cox Richardson/Letters from an American: Sometimes in the weeds, but one of the smartest people out there.
And despite the bias, I have taken to checking in at Al Jazeera for war news. Probably more closely resembles the truth than what we read in domestic media.
We need more independent news sources and commenters. What did Rachel Maddow used to say, "Without Fear or Favor"? Although Parnas has really been targeted by AI crap and misinformation, mostly because he keeps pressing the Epstein issues and focuses on the survivors. I hope he gets the support and has the infrastructure to keep doing what he is doing.
W.M.H.B. in London, England, UK: I just wanted to mention 404 media, a project of four investigative journalists formerly of the much-lamented Vice, who started up their own website and podcasts.
G.S. in Woodhaven, NY: Very happy to see you run this piece. I'm glad that most of these sources are the ones I use. I do agree that things have been getting better on the fringes. There was a time (before Xi took power) that CGTN, also known as COMMUNIST CHINA, had more objective articles about America than the American media.
I also take heart that the hard-right media has been taking some ratings hits. Particularly the fact that Bari Weiss' new CBS Evening News has been kinda run out the building ratings wise.
I only disagree with ONE of your picks... Vox. I follow them, too. Nothing wrong with them, per se. But I put them on the same tier as the Huffington Post. The Left's answer to Fox or even out-there sites like OAN and Breitbart. Nothing wrong with a hard-left answer to the many right-leaning media outlets, but I am a bit of a Joe Friday (just the facts, ma'am) when it comes to hard news and fact reporting. The AP and Reuters are the only reason I still use eX-Twitter (I have it set up as a news ticker so I don't miss anything.)
This comes from an incident (PTSD is too strong a word; "very dominant superstition" may be a better word choice) from 9/11 where I chose to put on a CD over listening to the radio and missed all coverage as I was driving to class and got caught with my pants down to where I was sprinting to my academic advisor's office to get debriefed so I could come back informed (Never forgave myself; don't try, it shaped me as a man in more good ways than bad).
Even today, if I see breaking news, I will drop everything and look for corroboration. Left- or right-posting fake news will get you blocked. I've ended friendships, and even in one case almost quit a job, over being fed fake news. Mentally well... no, but it has worked for me for 25 years.
So, my bar is very high and while I lean hard-left, I also believe two wrongs don't make a right. Opinion has a place, but it needs to be listed as such EXPLICITLY. I am known to treat Rachel Maddow and the Krassenstein Bros. with just as much disdain as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity. However, I do think you missed a few bright spots:
- The Hill: Yes, their opinion has a smattering of the right, but they are very clear to cite the source and do try to give a variety of viewpoints. Their factual reporting is basically Politico but with more formal sourcing and a centrist approach.
My ruling: Center right, but the first word WAY more than the second. A good fact check on Politico and The Bulwark.- The New Yorker: If you like deep thought and in-depth reporting, it's worth the money; even the previews are thought-provoking. They go DEEP and they still have it. Leans left, but if you like good, solid, in-depth think pieces, you got something here. And if you want to move a bit further left, Mother Jones also works.
- The Independent (UK): They are liberal... by British standards, but their American reporting is refreshingly centrist. Also, they don't paywall and are spartan with ads. Center-left/neutral view from across the pond.
- The Guardian (UK): My go-to when my brain says "Something's happened, let me get EXACTLY what" on the national level. Yes they're British and their U.S. reporting has scaled back, but they were beating WaPo well before WaPo got shut down.
- News Nation: The new kid in the crowded 24/7 news channel wasteland. Founded by Tribune as a middle finger at Sinclair when Sinclair tried to buy them out and got rebuffed. Not perfect. Center-right, funds and broadcasts a political report from The Hill and sources it a lot. But if I need 24/7 news (like on Election Day or during a major disaster), I find myself turning here before anywhere else. Yes their primetime opinion block is as annoying as any other, but they do balance it. They have their lefties, they have their righties, and whatever Chris Cuomo is these days. Compared to CNN, Fox News or MSNOW, I'll take it. They at least TRY... for how long, who knows. But for now I'm likely using them over ABC (who I've used since 2000) for election coverage this midterm.
My ruling: When you need to watch 24/7 cable news, which should be done sparingly, this is the best of the worst.That's the list. Is it perfect? No, and what you posted I agree with almost 1000%. Politico has been a gem. The Bulwark to me leans left, but is a good barometer of what the Democrats are (and, in most cases, aren't) doing to fight back. AP keeps chugging. Reuters I find a bit simplistic sometimes, but good for quick alerts.
P.S.: I'd include you on the list, as well, but that'd be self-serving... take it as a compliment and NEVER STOP what you do!
M.D.H. in Coralville, IA: I'm surprised you didn't mention States Newsroom, an organization focused on State-level news. Since I live in Iowa, I follow their Iowa newsroom. Readers of this site from other states might want to check them out for local news. This is their list of newsrooms by region.
C.B. in Fresno, CA: Thank you! I canceled my WaPo subscription a few years ago. I currently subscribe to the Fresno Bee for local news, but it now belongs to Sinclair and covers Sacramento and other cities and has become irrelevant to my needs. And too Republican, to boot.
So, I've been looking for another source for world and national news and you've given me a lot of interesting suggestions. I don't suppose you have any suggestions for local Fresno news...
We don't have any Fresno suggestions, but if we hear of any from readers, we will pass them along!
Oh, and the negative feedback we got? A few e-mails complaining that Axios and Politico are mouthpieces for the Trump administration. Yes, that can be a problem with them sometimes. But, to paraphrase, we're stuck with the media outlets we have, not the ones we wish we had. And both of those outlets certainly offer up quality coverage on a regular basis.
Anyhow, we hope this was a helpful addendum. (Z)