Hi Gina, as for what we can do to protect our free press, there are a few courses of action concerned citizens can take. Supporting advocacy organizations is a great place to start. Groups like the Committee to Protect Journalists actively work to defend press freedoms and can use public support through donations, volunteer work, or simply amplifying their messages.
Supporting quality journalism is perhaps the most direct action we can take. If you're able, subscribe to reputable news organizations that are transparent in their mission to be nonpartisan and demonstrate a commitment to factual reporting. And if you're on a budget and already at your subscription limit, it might be worth evaluating who owns the organizations you currently support. Has their coverage been influenced by the politics of wealthy billionaires? Are they vulnerable to corporate owners that have to bow to Trump for the right to exist? Consider moving your dollars to organizations that can't be easily bought or corrupted by MAGA interests – perhaps independent, reader-funded outlets or nonprofit newsrooms with transparent funding models. (Like the Preamble!)
Spreading awareness is equally important. Share articles like this one that document concerning trends. When posting, consider language that might resonate with people regardless of political affiliation, something like: "Whether you're liberal or conservative, the government using regulatory agencies to target specific media outlets should concern all Americans. The same tactics used against networks you dislike today could be used against ones you trust tomorrow. This article details how the FCC is being weaponized against certain media outlets while others are ignored. Press freedom isn't partisan—it's constitutional."
Engaging in public comment periods can also make a difference. While it's true that a Trump-appointed FCC majority may not change course based on public feedback alone, a massive volume of comments creates a public record showing that decisions are being made despite significant opposition. This documentation matters historically, legally, and for future accountability. The FCC is required to allow public comments on major rule changes, and monitoring their website for these opportunities means your voice becomes part of the official record.
And yes, contacting your representatives remains important, even though it's prescribed for nearly every issue. That's because it still works, especially when enough people do it. Calling or writing to your senators and congressional representatives to express concern about FCC actions that appear politically motivated reminds them that voters are paying attention. The Senate has oversight authority over the FCC, and hearing from constituents can influence how aggressively they exercise that oversight.
You're right that knowledge without action doesn't create change. But informed citizens working together absolutely can make a positive difference, even in challenging times.
I’d also add, subscribe to your local paper! Journalism isn’t free. I have a subscription to the Hartford Courant, the New York Times, the San Diego Union Tribune, Time, and the Preamble. I use my wallet to support the causes I believe in.
Thank you, Emily! I should have emphasized that point better, that local news organizations need our help too, not just the organizations directly named by the Trump administration. Like when the White House banned Associated Press reporters from the Oval Office and Air Force One, that was a direct attack on local journalism.
The AP's significance to local news can't be overstated. Thousands of local papers rely heavily on AP reporting for national and international coverage, as they simply don't have the resources to station reporters across the country or world. The president is cutting off a vital information pipeline to local communities across America.
Local papers have already been devastated by economic challenges over the past two decades. More than 2,500 local newspapers have closed since 2005, creating "news deserts" where communities have no reliable local coverage. When the AP is restricted, these already struggling outlets have even less capacity to inform their readers about national affairs.
You're absolutely right that journalism isn't free, and I’ll add that what social media has done to make people take journalism for granted is a huge cultural problem that will take many years to correct, even if we somehow find an antidote to the corrupting effects of platforms Facebook and X.
For those who might want to engage with the problem on a local level, here are some possible actions:
Subscribe to your local paper, as you've done, even if it's just a digital subscription. This provides direct financial support to journalists in your community.
Attend local government meetings and share information from them with your local paper. When local reporter positions are cut, these meetings often go uncovered.
Write letters to the editor supporting your local paper's independence and expressing concern when political figures attempt to delegitimize journalism.
Engage with your local news on social media by sharing their stories and combating misinformation in the comments.
Your approach of "voting with your wallet" is perhaps the most powerful tool we have. When enough citizens financially support independent journalism – from community papers to national outlets – it builds resilience against political intimidation. No news organization is perfect, but it is important to be mindful and hold news organizations accountable when they cave to political pressure.
I realize that these suggestions require more resources (both in time and money) than most people have. But for those of us who have the capacity to do it, you can help be part of the solution.
Thanks for highlighting this crucial aspect of defending press freedom!
I don't want to rain on your parade, especially since I was reared by a person who ran the local newspaper for 30 years and got out just as social media was taking hold. But wouldn't it be a simpler solution to all of this if people just wouldn't vote for the person who called the media the enemy of the people, vowed to destroy the media outlets that weren't favorable to him and came right out to say he was going to use the levers of power to bring retribution down on his perceived enemies? What of the people who knew all this was coming and voted for it? How do you reach them on TikTok or wherever they are? Or perhaps just as importantly, how do you reach the people who do consume a wide range of media, like many Preamble subscribers, and still voted for this?
Is argue even if the person in charge is pro media, truth, facts and data, we should all still be supporting local news. It doesn’t pay for itself, it needs subscribers.
I love supporting independent non-partisan news sources - MoNews Premium and SmartHer News. Such great and reliable sources. I also like supporting more opinion publications- The Preamble for left leaning community and The Free Press for right leaning. We are fortunate to have many options.
Also like the suggestion of print newspapers. I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.
Thanks for sharing your media diet, Amy! I appreciate how you balance sources across the spectrum - that's something we could all benefit from. If there’s anything to be optimistic about in today’s landscape of journalism, is the ability to seek out independent voices who have more of a platform than they could have had before the Internet Age. Whether or not we personally think that’s a good thing probably depends on whose voice we are discussing, but I tend to think it’s overall a good thing that will hopefully come back into the realm of sanity as we figure out how to use these new tools to discuss the world.
Your comment has me thinking about how categorizing media organizations by perceived political slant can be tricky these days. I think your label of the Preamble community leaning left in the comments is accurate, even as the newsletter itself aims for nonpartisan coverage. But our perception of media outlets often shifts depending on who's in power and who they're critiquing. A hypothetical journalist who consistently investigates people in power regardless of party affiliation will get perceived as biased in either direction based on the politics of who is running things. That’s not to say that organizations don’t have their customers’ politics in mind when choosing their stories, that will always happen with journalism that's bound by pressures of a capitalist system. But I just find the topic fascinating because our reaction to the news and their supposed biases is so based on our personal perspectives.
I'm curious, given your thoughtful approach to news consumption: what's your take on the FCC investigations described in Sharon's article? Do you see any concerning patterns, or do you view the situation differently? I think one reasonable person’s cause for alarm could be another reasonable person’s cause for celebration, if they are used to a system that seemed corrupt in the previous status quo. Your perspective always adds valuable balance to these conversations.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with you on how media is categorized is perceived differently depending who is in power. I have learned, from this educated group, to check Ad Fontes for evaluations of media sources. One commenter said once that reliability is often more important than biases, which I agree with. I have submitted a few Preamble articles to Ad Fontes (this is a paid feature 🤓) and they have come back as left leaning and good reliability. I look forward to seeing The Preamble on the Ad Fontes dashboard one day!
In regards to this article, I am concerned with different treatment for outlets that support Trump. I think it should be equal treatment by the FCC. I admit to feeling fatigued by all the lawsuits involving Trump- whether he is suing or being sued. My only reaction to that is overwhelm.
That’s interesting! Sharon’s Insta or podcast (not sure which one) showed up on there once and it was center and reliable.
I’m not surprised the Preamble leans left, mostly because of how critical she has been of the current administration. But I personally think she’d be as critical if it were a liberal administration doing the exact same thing.
I agree that Ad Fontes' use of reliability as well as political bias gives a much clearer picture than the efforts other organizations have been making to determine bias. It's one of my favorite charts to explore in my down time (which is very nerdy).
I'm always struck by how much more sparse the right-leaning reliable quadrant is than on the other side, and I'm genuinely curious why that's the case. It doesn't speak terribly well of the conservative news media. Any thoughts on that?
I love exploring the chart too! Lol :) I have noticed the same and I’m not sure why. But it is concerning if people only get news from right leaning and low reliability ranking. I see it on social media- people sharing stuff from both extremes and low reliability sources. Hopefully if Ad Fontes gets more exposure- people will seek media sources that are high in reliability.
I appreciate the ability to view news stories from Allsides.com which regularly updates its media bias chart and actively elicits user feedback on their rankings. It helps me view the same story from left-, center- and right-leading outlets and form my own opinion. It also helps me see more clearly the hyperbole and emotive language designed to cause a partisan reaction.
I liked Allsides for a while, but I felt their use of user feedback wasn't entirely helpful. That system (obviously) depends heavily on the users, and that community never seemed very diverse - causing a rating system that also was not diverse. That said, it's been a few years since I followed, so maybe they've improved the process and their community reach.
Aside from the demolition of the Fairness Doctrine, and the current censorship happening, one other thing that has slowly eroded our news is reality tv.
That sounds insane, I know. But Americans became obsessed with reality tv (jersey shore, Paris and Nicole, survivor, the Kardashians,(can’t forget The Apprentice ha. Ha ) etc etc. ) and slowly our news kind of followed suit by transforming from a broadcast that presented facts and current events, into its own sort of reality tv, making everything as salacious as possible to keep people interested and watching. Over time it’s been less and less about facts and more and more about how outrageous we can make everything and how angry we can make our viewers to keep them hooked. (see McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 1:2019cv11161)
This is a key piece of the puzzle imo! We want to be entertained, and now we have a show. I don’t know how we unwind it given the algorithms who skew towards anger and alarm online.
This is so true. I see it in family members who watch a variety of news from across the spectrum. They all get worked up about different things. Some I can discuss this with and others I can't. Constantly having the same channel on that discusses the same issues ad nauseum is not making them happier or better informed.
I think that comedy/satire news shows like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Last Week Tonight, etc also contributed to this. Do they do some good reporting? Absolutely. But mining the news for laughs downplays the seriousness of the topics being covered in my opinion. In turn, perhaps viewers also take the news less seriously if those shows are their main source of news consumption.
I think there is a very important distinction between the two.
First of all, satire/comedy news sources are very obviously meant to be comedy/satire /entertainment. That is evidenced by the way the stage is set up. It’s a single host behind a desk, they often have celebrity guests, a live audience, comedic slide shows, and in some cases even a laugh track. They also usually poke fun at both sides of the aisle.
On the other hand, you have Fox News arguing Tucker Fox and others are “entertainment” shows but are clearly meant to make audiences believe they are legitimate news shows. They usually have “co anchors” or invite exclusively political guests or commentators. They are deceptive with the sole purpose of “othering” and creating blind outrage.
I don’t think anyone should be getting their news solely from satire news sources and perhaps there’s an argument there that it makes things seem less serious. But I don’t think the two sides (outrage news v comedy news) are equally damaging. In my opinion one attempts to induce outrage and place blame, the other attempts to help people cope through the news with humor.
I wasn't saying that the comedy shows are the same as the partisan news networks. Totally agree that those are very different. I meant that the comedy shows contribute to the entertain-ifying of the news in a similar way as reality TV.
Yeah, when The Daily Show first started their trademark style of juxtaposing two clips of the same politicians saying blatantly contradictory things, that actually felt quite revelatory. Like the elected officials who had been granted the flimsy cover that "well, all politicians lie" were finally getting called out on their BS directly, and that was really satisfying.
It also didn't go much further than that, and the propaganda just adjusted anyway. Now there are "alternative facts" and "fake news" (and Trump's personal style of 'weaving' so that whatever you're saying is whatever people want to hear), and whataboutism takes most of the air out of pointing out hypocrisy.
Last Week Tonight has done a sort of corrective by at least ending most of their longform segments with a tangible call to action for their audience, and that has had measurable effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Oliver#Legacy
But I'm not sure how well that mixture of jokes sprinkled into "the worst story you've never heard of" will continue to wear. Season 1 was viewed by an average of a million viewers per episode. Season 11 was less than half of that, and so far Season 12 is even lower.
I go back and forth on this. I think when we see that legitimately damaging news isn't being taken seriously by Congress, it helps to break the internal frustration and tension by laughing through it. But I see your point that perhaps it downplays the damage too much. It's an interesting thought.
That’s the challenge we are all faced with when it comes to the Trump administration. The people who don’t agree with him that are in his administration are fired, or alienated, or threatened, etc.. those in the media who are critical of him or don’t agree with his policies or procedures are sued, accused of lying, shut down, alienated, etc., etc. One of the things that makes American great is that we can all voice, our opinions and our feelings about things regardless of what those things are. With no fear of reprisal or retribution from our government. When governments try to control or limit are voices we are headed in the wrong direction.
It’s just fine for Trump or others to not like what people are saying about them, but when you try to stop the voices, through litigation, or any other method than your own Rocky ground and that’s what he’s trying to do
As far as what we can do I think we need to reach out to our leaders Express our concerns Share this articles with others Create more dialogue regarding these issues. I for one have a tendency to read things like this, get depressed or mad, and then move onto the next article. I need to change that behavior. I need to stop being the silent majority or minority, whatever the case might be.
I think about the exhausting and harsh conditions so many groups of Americans have experienced throughout our history. How did the Black community survive hundreds of years of oppression with any hope? How did Native Americans survive the reservation structure? I am very aware right now of the privilege I have lived with as I am struggling to keep taking action when everyday it’s more horrifying action by trump and subservience by republicans.
I have exactly the same inner turmoil. My respect for marginalized groups of any kind from any place goes up and up every single day. My empathy and admiration is off the charts. My ability to enact change or functions healthfully is falling way short, and I'm tortured by it.
Project 2025 should’ve been called Putin 2025. America will soon be loathed by as many people inside the country as it is by people outside the country.
You can also sometimes subscribe to a newsletter for a paper for free. I do this with the Wall Street Journal. I like to see what they are covering and how they frame it compared to the NY Times (which I subscribe to) and our MN paper. The AP also has excellent newsletters and you don't need to subscribe to read their content.
Libraries often have multiple newspapers and magazines available as well, including in digital format. Always worth checking out what you might have access to!
Prior to the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, television networks (ABC, CBS, & NBC) viewed their news divisions/broadcasts as 'loss leaders.' Essentially considered public service. Financially, network news was carried by the entertainment divisions (e.g. sitcoms, drama/cop shows, and variety shows). Once the Fairness Doctrine was out of the picture, it allowed for many changes-of-thought regarding television "news." It could actually be profitable on its own. But, it would have to be 'entertaining' as well. This is where Rupert Murdoch saw his opportunity to enter the U.S. market, and establish FOX. However, while the Fairness Doctrine no longer provided statutory constraints on the industry--the established networks continued to practice their craft under the generalized, ethical rules of journalism. When confronted by others in the industry about maintaining journalistic integrity--Murdoch countered with, 'FOX News is not practicing nor engaging in 'journalism'...nor does FOX News hire 'journalists.' We hire 'entertainment personalities' to report their opinions about the news, and people in the news.' And, technically, no division/department at the FOX network is registered with the FCC as "news." It is officially registered as solely an "entertainment" network. Now...I do have to say that this may be 'old' information, and may have changed in recent years. If anyone would like to correct me--I would welcome that. I am speaking from memory alone; information that I learned several years ago.,
Sharon, do you think at any point you could do a preamble article on sharing some smaller independent journalist organizations doing nonpartisan work? I subscribe to here and my local newspaper AJC, but I’d love to support more if able!
When Sharon has someone write an article here on The Preamble, like Gabe with Wake Up To Politics, subscribe to them. If Sharon has them writing under her substack you can bet they are vetted and trusted. I also follow Dan Rather’s Steady Substack.
Mike "I have no finances to disclose" Johnson? The best explanation for his complete lack of listing financial assets is that he and his family are living paycheck-to-paycheck, which is certainly possible (even though he makes $200k annually and his wife has two jobs, they do have four kids...), but a tight situation like that is also a known vulnerability for exploitation.
Well, that was depressing.
But necessary.
Thank you for the information.
It is no longer possible to be an informed and thinking person without being depressed.
Sharon, as the only antidote is action, can you provide us with any courses of action to protect our free press?
Are there any guardrails or checks and balances?
Thank you for keeping us painfully informed so that we might possibly make a positive difference.
For decency!
Hi Gina, as for what we can do to protect our free press, there are a few courses of action concerned citizens can take. Supporting advocacy organizations is a great place to start. Groups like the Committee to Protect Journalists actively work to defend press freedoms and can use public support through donations, volunteer work, or simply amplifying their messages.
Supporting quality journalism is perhaps the most direct action we can take. If you're able, subscribe to reputable news organizations that are transparent in their mission to be nonpartisan and demonstrate a commitment to factual reporting. And if you're on a budget and already at your subscription limit, it might be worth evaluating who owns the organizations you currently support. Has their coverage been influenced by the politics of wealthy billionaires? Are they vulnerable to corporate owners that have to bow to Trump for the right to exist? Consider moving your dollars to organizations that can't be easily bought or corrupted by MAGA interests – perhaps independent, reader-funded outlets or nonprofit newsrooms with transparent funding models. (Like the Preamble!)
Spreading awareness is equally important. Share articles like this one that document concerning trends. When posting, consider language that might resonate with people regardless of political affiliation, something like: "Whether you're liberal or conservative, the government using regulatory agencies to target specific media outlets should concern all Americans. The same tactics used against networks you dislike today could be used against ones you trust tomorrow. This article details how the FCC is being weaponized against certain media outlets while others are ignored. Press freedom isn't partisan—it's constitutional."
Engaging in public comment periods can also make a difference. While it's true that a Trump-appointed FCC majority may not change course based on public feedback alone, a massive volume of comments creates a public record showing that decisions are being made despite significant opposition. This documentation matters historically, legally, and for future accountability. The FCC is required to allow public comments on major rule changes, and monitoring their website for these opportunities means your voice becomes part of the official record.
And yes, contacting your representatives remains important, even though it's prescribed for nearly every issue. That's because it still works, especially when enough people do it. Calling or writing to your senators and congressional representatives to express concern about FCC actions that appear politically motivated reminds them that voters are paying attention. The Senate has oversight authority over the FCC, and hearing from constituents can influence how aggressively they exercise that oversight.
You're right that knowledge without action doesn't create change. But informed citizens working together absolutely can make a positive difference, even in challenging times.
For decency!
I’d also add, subscribe to your local paper! Journalism isn’t free. I have a subscription to the Hartford Courant, the New York Times, the San Diego Union Tribune, Time, and the Preamble. I use my wallet to support the causes I believe in.
Thank you, Emily! I should have emphasized that point better, that local news organizations need our help too, not just the organizations directly named by the Trump administration. Like when the White House banned Associated Press reporters from the Oval Office and Air Force One, that was a direct attack on local journalism.
The AP's significance to local news can't be overstated. Thousands of local papers rely heavily on AP reporting for national and international coverage, as they simply don't have the resources to station reporters across the country or world. The president is cutting off a vital information pipeline to local communities across America.
Local papers have already been devastated by economic challenges over the past two decades. More than 2,500 local newspapers have closed since 2005, creating "news deserts" where communities have no reliable local coverage. When the AP is restricted, these already struggling outlets have even less capacity to inform their readers about national affairs.
You're absolutely right that journalism isn't free, and I’ll add that what social media has done to make people take journalism for granted is a huge cultural problem that will take many years to correct, even if we somehow find an antidote to the corrupting effects of platforms Facebook and X.
For those who might want to engage with the problem on a local level, here are some possible actions:
Subscribe to your local paper, as you've done, even if it's just a digital subscription. This provides direct financial support to journalists in your community.
Attend local government meetings and share information from them with your local paper. When local reporter positions are cut, these meetings often go uncovered.
Write letters to the editor supporting your local paper's independence and expressing concern when political figures attempt to delegitimize journalism.
Engage with your local news on social media by sharing their stories and combating misinformation in the comments.
Your approach of "voting with your wallet" is perhaps the most powerful tool we have. When enough citizens financially support independent journalism – from community papers to national outlets – it builds resilience against political intimidation. No news organization is perfect, but it is important to be mindful and hold news organizations accountable when they cave to political pressure.
I realize that these suggestions require more resources (both in time and money) than most people have. But for those of us who have the capacity to do it, you can help be part of the solution.
Thanks for highlighting this crucial aspect of defending press freedom!
I don't want to rain on your parade, especially since I was reared by a person who ran the local newspaper for 30 years and got out just as social media was taking hold. But wouldn't it be a simpler solution to all of this if people just wouldn't vote for the person who called the media the enemy of the people, vowed to destroy the media outlets that weren't favorable to him and came right out to say he was going to use the levers of power to bring retribution down on his perceived enemies? What of the people who knew all this was coming and voted for it? How do you reach them on TikTok or wherever they are? Or perhaps just as importantly, how do you reach the people who do consume a wide range of media, like many Preamble subscribers, and still voted for this?
Is argue even if the person in charge is pro media, truth, facts and data, we should all still be supporting local news. It doesn’t pay for itself, it needs subscribers.
Timothy Patrick, thank you for your excellent and comprehensive reply.
It’s a blueprint for democracy.
It’s the anti-Project 2025.
For decency, indeed!
I love supporting independent non-partisan news sources - MoNews Premium and SmartHer News. Such great and reliable sources. I also like supporting more opinion publications- The Preamble for left leaning community and The Free Press for right leaning. We are fortunate to have many options.
Also like the suggestion of print newspapers. I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.
Thanks for sharing your media diet, Amy! I appreciate how you balance sources across the spectrum - that's something we could all benefit from. If there’s anything to be optimistic about in today’s landscape of journalism, is the ability to seek out independent voices who have more of a platform than they could have had before the Internet Age. Whether or not we personally think that’s a good thing probably depends on whose voice we are discussing, but I tend to think it’s overall a good thing that will hopefully come back into the realm of sanity as we figure out how to use these new tools to discuss the world.
Your comment has me thinking about how categorizing media organizations by perceived political slant can be tricky these days. I think your label of the Preamble community leaning left in the comments is accurate, even as the newsletter itself aims for nonpartisan coverage. But our perception of media outlets often shifts depending on who's in power and who they're critiquing. A hypothetical journalist who consistently investigates people in power regardless of party affiliation will get perceived as biased in either direction based on the politics of who is running things. That’s not to say that organizations don’t have their customers’ politics in mind when choosing their stories, that will always happen with journalism that's bound by pressures of a capitalist system. But I just find the topic fascinating because our reaction to the news and their supposed biases is so based on our personal perspectives.
I'm curious, given your thoughtful approach to news consumption: what's your take on the FCC investigations described in Sharon's article? Do you see any concerning patterns, or do you view the situation differently? I think one reasonable person’s cause for alarm could be another reasonable person’s cause for celebration, if they are used to a system that seemed corrupt in the previous status quo. Your perspective always adds valuable balance to these conversations.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with you on how media is categorized is perceived differently depending who is in power. I have learned, from this educated group, to check Ad Fontes for evaluations of media sources. One commenter said once that reliability is often more important than biases, which I agree with. I have submitted a few Preamble articles to Ad Fontes (this is a paid feature 🤓) and they have come back as left leaning and good reliability. I look forward to seeing The Preamble on the Ad Fontes dashboard one day!
In regards to this article, I am concerned with different treatment for outlets that support Trump. I think it should be equal treatment by the FCC. I admit to feeling fatigued by all the lawsuits involving Trump- whether he is suing or being sued. My only reaction to that is overwhelm.
That’s interesting! Sharon’s Insta or podcast (not sure which one) showed up on there once and it was center and reliable.
I’m not surprised the Preamble leans left, mostly because of how critical she has been of the current administration. But I personally think she’d be as critical if it were a liberal administration doing the exact same thing.
I agree that Ad Fontes' use of reliability as well as political bias gives a much clearer picture than the efforts other organizations have been making to determine bias. It's one of my favorite charts to explore in my down time (which is very nerdy).
I'm always struck by how much more sparse the right-leaning reliable quadrant is than on the other side, and I'm genuinely curious why that's the case. It doesn't speak terribly well of the conservative news media. Any thoughts on that?
I love exploring the chart too! Lol :) I have noticed the same and I’m not sure why. But it is concerning if people only get news from right leaning and low reliability ranking. I see it on social media- people sharing stuff from both extremes and low reliability sources. Hopefully if Ad Fontes gets more exposure- people will seek media sources that are high in reliability.
I appreciate the ability to view news stories from Allsides.com which regularly updates its media bias chart and actively elicits user feedback on their rankings. It helps me view the same story from left-, center- and right-leading outlets and form my own opinion. It also helps me see more clearly the hyperbole and emotive language designed to cause a partisan reaction.
I liked Allsides for a while, but I felt their use of user feedback wasn't entirely helpful. That system (obviously) depends heavily on the users, and that community never seemed very diverse - causing a rating system that also was not diverse. That said, it's been a few years since I followed, so maybe they've improved the process and their community reach.
Same. Ad Fontes is my go to now.
They’ve gotten worse. I chose to unfollow them last year.
This is helpful. Thank you.
The MAGA world loves to claim a return to “free speech” while the exact opposite is occurring. I’m so very tired of it all.
Aside from the demolition of the Fairness Doctrine, and the current censorship happening, one other thing that has slowly eroded our news is reality tv.
That sounds insane, I know. But Americans became obsessed with reality tv (jersey shore, Paris and Nicole, survivor, the Kardashians,(can’t forget The Apprentice ha. Ha ) etc etc. ) and slowly our news kind of followed suit by transforming from a broadcast that presented facts and current events, into its own sort of reality tv, making everything as salacious as possible to keep people interested and watching. Over time it’s been less and less about facts and more and more about how outrageous we can make everything and how angry we can make our viewers to keep them hooked. (see McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 1:2019cv11161)
This is a key piece of the puzzle imo! We want to be entertained, and now we have a show. I don’t know how we unwind it given the algorithms who skew towards anger and alarm online.
This is so true. I see it in family members who watch a variety of news from across the spectrum. They all get worked up about different things. Some I can discuss this with and others I can't. Constantly having the same channel on that discusses the same issues ad nauseum is not making them happier or better informed.
I think that comedy/satire news shows like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Last Week Tonight, etc also contributed to this. Do they do some good reporting? Absolutely. But mining the news for laughs downplays the seriousness of the topics being covered in my opinion. In turn, perhaps viewers also take the news less seriously if those shows are their main source of news consumption.
I think there is a very important distinction between the two.
First of all, satire/comedy news sources are very obviously meant to be comedy/satire /entertainment. That is evidenced by the way the stage is set up. It’s a single host behind a desk, they often have celebrity guests, a live audience, comedic slide shows, and in some cases even a laugh track. They also usually poke fun at both sides of the aisle.
On the other hand, you have Fox News arguing Tucker Fox and others are “entertainment” shows but are clearly meant to make audiences believe they are legitimate news shows. They usually have “co anchors” or invite exclusively political guests or commentators. They are deceptive with the sole purpose of “othering” and creating blind outrage.
I don’t think anyone should be getting their news solely from satire news sources and perhaps there’s an argument there that it makes things seem less serious. But I don’t think the two sides (outrage news v comedy news) are equally damaging. In my opinion one attempts to induce outrage and place blame, the other attempts to help people cope through the news with humor.
I wasn't saying that the comedy shows are the same as the partisan news networks. Totally agree that those are very different. I meant that the comedy shows contribute to the entertain-ifying of the news in a similar way as reality TV.
Yeah, when The Daily Show first started their trademark style of juxtaposing two clips of the same politicians saying blatantly contradictory things, that actually felt quite revelatory. Like the elected officials who had been granted the flimsy cover that "well, all politicians lie" were finally getting called out on their BS directly, and that was really satisfying.
It also didn't go much further than that, and the propaganda just adjusted anyway. Now there are "alternative facts" and "fake news" (and Trump's personal style of 'weaving' so that whatever you're saying is whatever people want to hear), and whataboutism takes most of the air out of pointing out hypocrisy.
Last Week Tonight has done a sort of corrective by at least ending most of their longform segments with a tangible call to action for their audience, and that has had measurable effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Oliver#Legacy
But I'm not sure how well that mixture of jokes sprinkled into "the worst story you've never heard of" will continue to wear. Season 1 was viewed by an average of a million viewers per episode. Season 11 was less than half of that, and so far Season 12 is even lower.
They certainly don’t help, that is for sure.
I go back and forth on this. I think when we see that legitimately damaging news isn't being taken seriously by Congress, it helps to break the internal frustration and tension by laughing through it. But I see your point that perhaps it downplays the damage too much. It's an interesting thought.
YES!!!!!!!!! I could not agree with this more.
That’s the challenge we are all faced with when it comes to the Trump administration. The people who don’t agree with him that are in his administration are fired, or alienated, or threatened, etc.. those in the media who are critical of him or don’t agree with his policies or procedures are sued, accused of lying, shut down, alienated, etc., etc. One of the things that makes American great is that we can all voice, our opinions and our feelings about things regardless of what those things are. With no fear of reprisal or retribution from our government. When governments try to control or limit are voices we are headed in the wrong direction.
It’s just fine for Trump or others to not like what people are saying about them, but when you try to stop the voices, through litigation, or any other method than your own Rocky ground and that’s what he’s trying to do
As far as what we can do I think we need to reach out to our leaders Express our concerns Share this articles with others Create more dialogue regarding these issues. I for one have a tendency to read things like this, get depressed or mad, and then move onto the next article. I need to change that behavior. I need to stop being the silent majority or minority, whatever the case might be.
I think about the exhausting and harsh conditions so many groups of Americans have experienced throughout our history. How did the Black community survive hundreds of years of oppression with any hope? How did Native Americans survive the reservation structure? I am very aware right now of the privilege I have lived with as I am struggling to keep taking action when everyday it’s more horrifying action by trump and subservience by republicans.
I have exactly the same inner turmoil. My respect for marginalized groups of any kind from any place goes up and up every single day. My empathy and admiration is off the charts. My ability to enact change or functions healthfully is falling way short, and I'm tortured by it.
Censorship plain and simple. This is really scary.
Project 2025 should’ve been called Putin 2025. America will soon be loathed by as many people inside the country as it is by people outside the country.
After reading this, I immediately went and paid to subscribe to my local paper as a way to push back against this corruption.
I’ll be looking to add a national one as well, and also I pay to subscribe to Preamble!
You can also sometimes subscribe to a newsletter for a paper for free. I do this with the Wall Street Journal. I like to see what they are covering and how they frame it compared to the NY Times (which I subscribe to) and our MN paper. The AP also has excellent newsletters and you don't need to subscribe to read their content.
Libraries often have multiple newspapers and magazines available as well, including in digital format. Always worth checking out what you might have access to!
And you get to support libraries at the same time which is always a good thing! :)
Prior to the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, television networks (ABC, CBS, & NBC) viewed their news divisions/broadcasts as 'loss leaders.' Essentially considered public service. Financially, network news was carried by the entertainment divisions (e.g. sitcoms, drama/cop shows, and variety shows). Once the Fairness Doctrine was out of the picture, it allowed for many changes-of-thought regarding television "news." It could actually be profitable on its own. But, it would have to be 'entertaining' as well. This is where Rupert Murdoch saw his opportunity to enter the U.S. market, and establish FOX. However, while the Fairness Doctrine no longer provided statutory constraints on the industry--the established networks continued to practice their craft under the generalized, ethical rules of journalism. When confronted by others in the industry about maintaining journalistic integrity--Murdoch countered with, 'FOX News is not practicing nor engaging in 'journalism'...nor does FOX News hire 'journalists.' We hire 'entertainment personalities' to report their opinions about the news, and people in the news.' And, technically, no division/department at the FOX network is registered with the FCC as "news." It is officially registered as solely an "entertainment" network. Now...I do have to say that this may be 'old' information, and may have changed in recent years. If anyone would like to correct me--I would welcome that. I am speaking from memory alone; information that I learned several years ago.,
Thank you for this Sharon. If Carr thinks Google and Meta have too much influence , he should take a good look at X.
Sharon, do you think at any point you could do a preamble article on sharing some smaller independent journalist organizations doing nonpartisan work? I subscribe to here and my local newspaper AJC, but I’d love to support more if able!
When Sharon has someone write an article here on The Preamble, like Gabe with Wake Up To Politics, subscribe to them. If Sharon has them writing under her substack you can bet they are vetted and trusted. I also follow Dan Rather’s Steady Substack.
Thank you for the interesting article.
How childish. Big bully going after anyone that doesn’t praise the leader. Where are the adults??
Off topic here. I just heard that Mike Johnson is talking about eliminating district courts.
Mike Johnson has become yet another puppet for the Trump/Musk regime. I'm honestly curious about what kind of dirt they have on him.
Mike "I have no finances to disclose" Johnson? The best explanation for his complete lack of listing financial assets is that he and his family are living paycheck-to-paycheck, which is certainly possible (even though he makes $200k annually and his wife has two jobs, they do have four kids...), but a tight situation like that is also a known vulnerability for exploitation.
What are you suggesting here?
That, as with many of our currently elected Reps and Senators, there could be financial motivations for what appears to be unquestioning loyalty.
Got it.