Monday Morning Thoughts: The Demise of Journalism Started Long Before We Ever Heard of Advocacy Journalism
By David Greenwald
Executive Editor
Back in the mid-90s, I spent a summer in Washington working for People for the American Way. My job was to monitor right wing communications and create a report countering arguments at that point aimed at defunding the National Endowment For the Arts.
It was a crazy thing – all of these right wing, Christian groups would complain about inappropriate funding of supposedly obscene art by delivering to their audience very graphic descriptions of these art pieces. There was high irony there. Spending a day wading through that material, I felt like I needed a shower just to clean off the filfth.
My efforts were successful, my report was circulating throughout Congress and Senator Tom Harkin actually read the full report into the Congressional Record.
At the same time I was doing that, I became VERY familiar with right wing publications. This was right around the time that Fox News had launched but before it was really on people’s radar.
Never the less I remember reading material from Brent Bozell who was heading up the Media Research Center, he spent his day writing daily reports that got emailed out which identified sources of media bias. But it wasn’t necessarily media bias they were highlighting, rather they were highlighting many cases where the media was not toeing the right wing line.
At one point – because I was me – I caved to temptation and emailed him and asked him if his recommendation was really to replace news that he thought was leftward biased with news that was utterly right wing.
To my astonishment, he actually responded and said that his goal was actually just to gain awareness and provide for some balance.
What has happened over the next 25 years is that Fox News has increasingly filled that void – providing the so-called balance but actually it tipped media coverage pulling a huge audience of right winger listeners into its orbit and feeding them the kinds of things that the Brent Bozell’s wanted to hear 25 years ago on a daily basis.
The left has been exceedingly slow to catch up to this. The danger here is illustrated with kind of the twin crises of 2020-21 – COVID and the 2020 Election and aftermath. One of our readers noted that distrust of the government is driving some of the vaccine hesitation, but a bigger driver has been non-stop news cycle from the right.
The last poll I saw – something like 70 percent of Republicans believe that Trump rightly won.
I have been particularly critical of the journalism in the Trump era. Basically the media in my view, never figured out how to cover Trump. For the most part, they attempted to fact-check him – which wielded a treasure trove of stories on his misstatements and outright lies. But it left him untouched by his supporters who are (a) watching Fox News and (b) skeptical of mainstream media for reasons both legitimate and illegitimate.
During his tenure I would speak to a lot of Trump supporters and their views were: (a) we know he’s not a nice guy, (b) we know he sometimes stretches the truth, but both sides do, (c) we don’t care because he does what we want him to do.
As Margaret Sullivan points out in her column last week in the Washington Post, Trump didn’t exactly invent any of this stuff. He may have perfected it though.
Sullivan cited a 2012 op-ed by Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann about “the rise of Republican Party extremism and its dire effect on American democracy.”
She noted that while they did not use the now-in-vogue terms “both-sidesism” or “false equivalence,” they did lay out the problem with “devastating clarity.”
They write: “We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change any time soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.”
This is exactly the problem. There is really not another side to issues like the 2020 Election, COVID, and other issues like Climate Change. But mainstream media values force a false equivalence. Reporters are supposed to dutifully balance an official statement that there was no election fraud with a claim that there was.
I think mainstream journalists are kind of stuck and the more intelligent ones kind of realize it.
Then I get alarmed by columns like Jonathan Turley’s this morning, he’s a Professor of Law at George Washington, a Free Speech advocate and more centrist than most.
He is railing against advocacy journalism. He is targeting former New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones. Hannah-Jones who he describes as “one of the most prominent proponents of advocacy journalism and her writings, including as part of the 1619 Project, are highly controversial.”
He also mentioned the firing of Lauren Wolfe, who “was fired for saying that she had “chills” in watching Biden land at Andrews Air Force base.” Turley writes, “Wolfe later penned a column declaring “I’m a Biased Journalist and I’m Okay With That” — a full-throated endorsement of the new journalistic model of open bias and advocacy.”
Turley worries that things have gone too far where with “journalism deans writing to reporters for them to be advocates to protect the subjects of news stories.”
He calls the move “consistent with the writing for Stanford journalism professor Ted Glasser.” Glasser, he says, insists that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.”
Glasser, Turly writes, “rejected the notion that the journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.””
Turley concludes: “The question is who will be left to “protect” journalism. The abandonment of the tradition of neutrality for reporters will hasten the decline of American journalism. Polls show trust in the media at an all-time low with less than 20 percent of citizens trusting television or print media. Yet, reporters and academics continue to destroy the core principles that sustain journalism and ultimately the role of a free press in our society.”
The problem here is that Turley is focused in a tunnel on this particular issue, seeing it in a vacuum. At no point does he frame the context of this debate. At no point does he acknowledge the impact of 25 years of Fox News on journalism. At no point does he recognize the problem that we have attempting to cover objectively false narratives like that of election fraud.
If the public trusts the media at an all-time low, maybe it has something to do with the 25 years of Fox blasting the mainstream media and Trump forcing the media to pick facts and accuracy over balanced coverage?
I don’t disagree that there is a problem here but he is picking on the response not the instigator. He is equivalent to the ref who hits the guy with a flagrant for punching the player in his throat while missing the initial punch.
Back in the mid-90s, I spent a summer in Washington working for People for the American Way. My job was to monitor right-wing communications and create a report countering arguments at that point aimed at defunding the National Endowment For the Arts.
It was a crazy thing – all of these right-wing, Christian groups would complain about inappropriate funding of supposedly obscene art by delivering to their audience very graphic descriptions of these art pieces. There was high irony there. Spending a day wading through that material, I felt like I needed a shower just to clean off the filth.
My efforts were successful, my report was circulating throughout Congress and Senator Tom Harkin actually read the full report into the Congressional Record.
At the same time I was doing that, I became VERY familiar with right-wing publications. This was right around the time that Fox News had launched but before it was really on people’s radar.
Nevertheless, I remember reading material from Brent Bozell who was heading up the Media Research Center, he spent his day writing daily reports that got emailed out which identified sources of media bias. But it wasn’t necessarily media bias they were highlighting, rather they were highlighting many cases where the media was not toeing the right-wing line.
At one point – because I was me – I caved to temptation and emailed him and asked him if his recommendation was really to replace news that he thought was leftward biased with news that was utterly right-wing.
To my astonishment, he actually responded and said that his goal was actually just to gain awareness and provide for some balance.
What has happened over the next 25 years is that Fox News has increasingly filled that void – providing the so-called balance but actually it tipped media coverage pulling a huge audience of right-winger listeners into its orbit and feeding them the kinds of things that the Brent Bozell’s wanted to hear 25 years ago on a daily basis.
The left has been exceedingly slow to catch up to this. The danger here is illustrated with kind of the twin crises of 2020-21 – COVID and the 2020 Election and aftermath. One of our readers noted that distrust of the government is driving some of the vaccine hesitation, but a bigger driver has been the non-stop news cycle from the right.
The last poll I saw – something like 70 percent of Republicans believe that Trump rightly won.
I have been particularly critical of journalism in the Trump era. Basically, the media in my view never figured out how to cover Trump. For the most part, they attempted to fact-check him – which wielded a treasure trove of stories on his misstatements and outright lies. But it left him untouched by his supporters who are (a) watching Fox News and (b) skeptical of mainstream media for reasons both legitimate and illegitimate.
During his tenure, I would speak to a lot of Trump supporters and their views were: (a) we know he’s not a nice guy, (b) we know he sometimes stretches the truth, but both sides do, (c) we don’t care because he does what we want him to do.
As Margaret Sullivan points out in her column last week in the Washington Post, Trump didn’t exactly invent any of this stuff. He may have perfected it though.
Sullivan cited a 2012 op-ed by Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann about “the rise of Republican Party extremism and its dire effect on American democracy.”
She noted that while they did not use the now-in-vogue terms “both-sidesism” or “false equivalence,” they did lay out the problem with “devastating clarity.”
They write: “We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change any time soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.”
This is exactly the problem. There is really not another side to issues like the 2020 Election, COVID, and other issues like Climate Change. But mainstream media values force a false equivalence. Reporters are supposed to dutifully balance an official statement that there was no election fraud with a claim that there was.
I think mainstream journalists are kind of stuck and the more intelligent ones kind of realize it.
Then I get alarmed by columns like Jonathan Turley’s this morning, he’s a Professor of Law at George Washington, a Free Speech advocate and more centrist than most.
He is railing against advocacy journalism. He is targeting former New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones. Hannah-Jones who he describes as “one of the most prominent proponents of advocacy journalism and her writings, including as part of the 1619 Project, are highly controversial.”
He also mentioned the firing of Lauren Wolfe, who “was fired for saying that she had “chills” in watching Biden land at Andrews Air Force base.” Turley writes, “Wolfe later penned a column declaring “I’m a Biased Journalist and I’m Okay With That” — a full-throated endorsement of the new journalistic model of open bias and advocacy.”
Turley worries that things have gone too far, with “journalism deans writing to reporters for them to be advocates to protect the subjects of news stories.”
He calls the move “consistent with the writing for Stanford journalism professor Ted Glasser.” Glasser, he says, insists that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.”
Glasser, Turley writes, “rejected the notion that the journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.””
Turley concludes: “The question is who will be left to “protect” journalism. The abandonment of the tradition of neutrality for reporters will hasten the decline of American journalism. Polls show trust in the media at an all-time low with less than 20 percent of citizens trusting television or print media. Yet, reporters and academics continue to destroy the core principles that sustain journalism and ultimately the role of a free press in our society.”
The problem here is that Turley is focused in a tunnel on this particular issue, seeing it in a vacuum. At no point does he frame the context of this debate. At no point does he acknowledge the impact of 25 years of Fox News on journalism. At no point does he recognize the problem that we have attempting to cover objectively false narratives like that of election fraud.
If the public trusts the media at an all-time low, maybe it has something to do with the 25 years of Fox blasting the mainstream media and Trump forcing the media to pick facts and accuracy over balanced coverage?
I don’t disagree that there is a problem here but he is picking on the response not the instigator. He is equivalent to the ref who hits the guy with a flagrant for punching the player in his throat while missing the initial punch.
Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.
During his tenure, I would speak to a lot of Trump supporters and their views were: (a) we know he’s not a nice guy, (b) we know he sometimes stretches the truth, but both sides do, (c) we don’t care because he does what we want him to do.
I agree with (a) and (b), but not with point (c) “we don’t care because he does what we want him to do”.
For me and I believe most others who supported Trump (c) should read “we don’t care because he stops the left from implementing their agenda”.
If the public trusts the media at an all-time low, maybe it has something to do with the 25 years of Fox blasting the mainstream media and Trump forcing the media to pick facts and accuracy over balanced coverage?
“Balanced coverage”, where might that be coming from? Please, I’m all ears.
On your first point, that may be what separates you from the true bloods. Although I would add there probably a number of variants on c that I could have chosen.
On the second, that’s actually the point. It gets back to my email exchange 25 years ago with Bozell…
For me and I believe most others who supported Trump (c) should read “we don’t care because he stops the left from implementing their agenda”.
That’s the scary part. The belief in the “ends justify the means” is what has led to the rise of fascism in the past in formerly democratic nations. Rather than engage in dialogue, authoritarian force used to stifle dissent is the apparent solution.
That’s the scary part. The belief in the “ends justify the means” is what has led to the rise of fascism in the past in formerly democratic nations. Rather than engage in dialogue, authoritarian force used to stifle dissent is the apparent solution.
What are you even talking about? Don’t you think electing Biden was more about getting Trump out of office and stopping his agenda than it was about electing Biden? Your comment makes no sense. So is it the rise of fascism when Biden was elected? And speaking of stifling dissent, we’re certainly seeing that coming from the left, especially in social media.
So a left biased/wing blogger suggests the distrust of the news was caused by Fox News and we are supposed to take that as fact? Then the blogger cherrypicks election fraud which he knows is a losing issue for conservatives and pounds on that as the example. Why didn’t the blogger look at how mainstream media (for the most part) refuses to cover Joe Biden’s obvious diminishing mental capacity, Hunter Biden’s laptop scandal and his crappy art sales done under the cloak of secrecy backed by the White House, the terrible out of hand border situation, Biden’s rising inflation and why his policies are contributing to it, etc. Sure there’s some coverage but you know if this was happening under Trump the coverage would be non stop and very anti-Trump biased.
People no longer trust the news, left or right leaning. Yes Fox is part of the problem but I would say an even bigger part of the problem is the left biased, left wing news that dominates a majority of the coverage.
And finally, this blog’s biased critique of this subject doesn’t help at all, in my opinion it’s another example of why people don’t trust journalism these days.
There was a time (back in the day) when I appreciated publications such as The Chronicle, as well as The Bay Guardian.
The Internet has changed these things.
Sacramento News and Review seems to be based-upon the Bay Guardian’s model. And seems less development-oriented than the Vanguard, and covers issues such as rent control, the impact of corporate purchases of single-family housing in the region, UC tuition hikes, etc.
I don’t think that percentage is correct, regarding how you cover local issues. And certainly not in regard to your “advocacy”.
Regardless, I see from your subscriber article today that you’re losing interest in local issues, in general. I’ve noticed this before, as well.
Getting back to The Chronicle, the “style” of articles has changed, as well. In that many of them are essentially essays (e.g., examples of individual’s stories), in which the broader point is buried deep in the (extremely-lengthy) article. I’m not sure where this type of reporting began, but I usually lose interest within the first paragraph.
If I’m not mistaken, there’s at least one other publication in San Francisco that is similar to The Bay Guardian.
In any case, Sacramento News and Review is what I’d “normally” expect from a more left-leaning publication. I believe it’s more rounded than the Vanguard, in that sense. Broader coverage, rather than the legal system that the Vanguard is focused on.
The legal system obviously has appeal beyond Davis, which seems to be where your interest and success primarily lies.
Strongly disagree with that take. In terms of my time allocation, it’s probably a lot less than 5%. In terms of the Vanguard resource allocation, it’s far less than 5%. You over notice the housing/ economic development pieces because it’s your interest. But really what is local government? Most of it is land use. Back when I started, Sue Greenwald used to tell me that 75% of her job on the city council was land use. That dropped for a bit during the recession and budget was a bigger battle, but that was a very short period of time.
Also it’s not that I’m losing interest, it’s that I get whacked on all sides on local issues whereas the growth potential of the vanguard is elsewhere. I weigh the time and hassle and sometimes I wonder wtf I’m doing.
Well, if land use issues are “75%” of local issues, wouldn’t approximately “75%” of your local coverage be focused on that? (Or, at least 75% of what you cover regarding council decisions?)
But let’s drop that, as the exact percentage is not really an important point.
In any case, look what I listed for Sacramento News and Review regarding the types of issues that they cover (locally). I only look at it occasionally, but it is broader than what you cover and is less of a development-oriented publication. While still being primarily on “your side”.
Also it’s not that I’m losing interest, it’s that I get whacked on all sides on local issues whereas the growth potential of the vanguard is elsewhere. I weigh the time and hassle and sometimes I wonder wtf I’m doing.
Commenters get “whacked”, as well – sometimes by you. As such, they also wonder “wtf” they’re doing. (As I’m doing, as I write this.)
But it is true that your growth potential lies elsewhere, as you’ve already found. And given that you can tap into those pursuing law school, you’ve found a niche. You’ll probably be increasingly connected with successful attorneys (some of whom will be former interns), who will support the Vanguard.
There’s money to be had, in suing police departments and cities.
Don’t get me wrong – I admire that you’ve found a business model which also corresponds with your interests. (Seriously.)
In contrast, the Vanguard is very similar to The Chronicle regarding housing and development issues. And like the Vanguard, The Chronicle presents one-sided articles regarding that issue, which results in an inordinate number of comments (along with arguments “between commenters”) – including the usual personal insults. (Though one can create an anonymous identity if one chooses to do so, in the Chronicle’s comment section.)
Perhaps the real story of today’s journalism is the “subdivision” of political views that the Internet has fostered, especially since so much content is “free” (as opposed to paying for a newspaper delivered to your house every day.) I have noticed, however, that there’s an increasing tendency for newspapers to clamp-down on “free” Internet access. (I don’t think this will work in the long run, as there’s too many other “free” sources.)
But for sure, you can get some “bargain” introductory deals, if you subscribe to some publications. I did so myself, in regard to The Chronicle.
I would assume that there’s at least three reasons for the introductory offers:
1) To show advertisers that some are willing to pay for content.
2) The hope that subscribers will “forget” their bargain-rate introductory offer, and will allow their subscription to remain at a higher cost.
3) Newspapers are desperately searching for a way forward, in the Internet age.
I’ll keep this short due to the (daily) comment limit, but perhaps your comment points to the division among “progressives” regarding Scott Wiener, YIMBYs, etc. (Again, look at the headlines in the link I provided.)
Perhaps due to the subdivision of ideology enabled by the Internet, among groups that usually share some common concerns.
This difference can also be seen in the Vanguard vs. the Davisite. (Though they have totally different structures.)
I don’t know who Tim is, but I assume he’s the publisher of 48 Hills.
The Chronicle is right-up your alley, regarding “social justice”. Though they did “call out” that one school board member (regarding a controversy which didn’t really involve “white” people) – which I can’t imagine the Vanguard doing.
One does not even need to pay for cable TV service these days, to see network news broadcasts. Paying huge amounts for cable TV is as dead as MTV and the bassist for ZZ Top. (Though the comment regarding MTV is related to what they’ve become in recent years. Pretty much about the same time they moved away from music videos – including those of ZZ Top.)
You have found a way around all of this, using free/cheap student labor, and tapping into a broader movement which has real money – as a result of suing cities and police departments. Those folks are your allies.
We have been a largely going to head to head with them on the crime issue. They are an establishment paper, part of the machine, definitely not up my alley in any way.
Seems to me that The Chronicle is a big fan of Wiener and the YIMBYs, as well as using “social justice” arguments in support of housing.
Using a traditionally-conservative “trickle-down” argument, in conjunction with an attempt to disguise that fact in the name of social justice. (Despite gentrification, etc.)
It is ultimately an unabashed conservative argument. And you’ve picked your side, regarding that. As such, the Vanguard and The Chronicle are almost identical regarding that issue.
This comment reflects your worldview rather than mine. My driver is not housing.
This comment reflects your worldview rather than mine.
We’re making progress, boys! DG admits there is more than one “worldview” !!! 🙂 !!!
My driver is not housing.
Housing is a means to you driver. You think – like, in your worldview it is. And I think it’s quite telling that your blog portends to speak for the oppressed, yet you have a driver, Mx. Daisy. Do you roll down your rear window, seeking Grey Poupon?
“Housing is a means to you driver. You think – like, in your worldview it is. And I think it’s quite telling that your blog portends to speak for the oppressed, yet you have a driver, Mx. Daisy. Do you roll down your rear window, seeking Grey Poupon?”
What?
This comment reflects your worldview rather than mine.
Look at the comment again (pasted below). I was describing the similarity of the arguments that both the Vanguard and Chronicle use, in support of development.
Seems to me that The Chronicle is a big fan of Wiener and the YIMBYs, as well as using “social justice” arguments in support of housing.
Using a traditionally-conservative “trickle-down” argument, in conjunction with an attempt to disguise that fact in the name of social justice. (Despite gentrification, etc.)
It is ultimately an unabashed conservative argument. And you’ve picked your side, regarding that. As such, the Vanguard and The Chronicle are almost identical regarding that issue.
I am seeing no difference between what you espouse, vs. what The Chronicle and the YIMBYs espouse. Would you care to clarify what you see as the difference?
In contrast, would you ever publish articles such as the ones listed in 48 Hills, criticizing Wiener for example? Seems to me that you’re “quite the fan” of Wiener.
Or, do you ever write the type of articles regarding issues such as rent control and corporate single-family home purchases (as the Sacramento News and Review does)?
Tim is pretty good on criminal justice issues and the Chronicle is bad.
So, Tim more mirrors your views, and those of who you admire/agree with, and the Chron doesn’t… got it… there of course absolute, demonstrable levels of “good reporting” on criminal justice issues as there is on “bad reporting” on the same issues (or ANY issue, for that matter!)… hadn’t seen those objectiveabsolute guidelines… perhaps you can cite. Not my field…
Big diff between “reporting”, and “journalism”… and “editorializing”…
Has a lot to do with the difference between ‘facts’, ‘spin’ and ‘agenda’… it’s what you do with facts, that distinguish the 3… then you add ‘advocacy journalism’ which is somewhere between the latter 2 (occasionally beyond # 3)… on a sliding scale…
Goes WAY back… Hearst papers in the early 1900’s… hence the term “yellow dog journalism”… probably goes farther back than that… ‘journalism’ was used to fuel “the yellow threat”, the “Jewish conspiracy”, “Red Menace”, etc., for 70-120 years (or more)… across cultures… I suspect those who say they are “reporting”, when they are actually ‘journalizing’, ‘advocate journalizing’ or ‘editorializing’…
Bill Marshall, “reporting”… y’all decide where I am on the spectrum… g’night to all… be well…
I agree with (a) and (b), but not with point (c) “we don’t care because he does what we want him to do”.
For me and I believe most others who supported Trump (c) should read “we don’t care because he stops the left from implementing their agenda”.
“Balanced coverage”, where might that be coming from? Please, I’m all ears.
On your first point, that may be what separates you from the true bloods. Although I would add there probably a number of variants on c that I could have chosen.
On the second, that’s actually the point. It gets back to my email exchange 25 years ago with Bozell…
That’s the scary part. The belief in the “ends justify the means” is what has led to the rise of fascism in the past in formerly democratic nations. Rather than engage in dialogue, authoritarian force used to stifle dissent is the apparent solution.
What are you even talking about? Don’t you think electing Biden was more about getting Trump out of office and stopping his agenda than it was about electing Biden? Your comment makes no sense. So is it the rise of fascism when Biden was elected? And speaking of stifling dissent, we’re certainly seeing that coming from the left, especially in social media.
So a left biased/wing blogger suggests the distrust of the news was caused by Fox News and we are supposed to take that as fact? Then the blogger cherrypicks election fraud which he knows is a losing issue for conservatives and pounds on that as the example. Why didn’t the blogger look at how mainstream media (for the most part) refuses to cover Joe Biden’s obvious diminishing mental capacity, Hunter Biden’s laptop scandal and his crappy art sales done under the cloak of secrecy backed by the White House, the terrible out of hand border situation, Biden’s rising inflation and why his policies are contributing to it, etc. Sure there’s some coverage but you know if this was happening under Trump the coverage would be non stop and very anti-Trump biased.
People no longer trust the news, left or right leaning. Yes Fox is part of the problem but I would say an even bigger part of the problem is the left biased, left wing news that dominates a majority of the coverage.
And finally, this blog’s biased critique of this subject doesn’t help at all, in my opinion it’s another example of why people don’t trust journalism these days.
There I was encouraged by your first comment.
There was a time (back in the day) when I appreciated publications such as The Chronicle, as well as The Bay Guardian.
The Internet has changed these things.
Sacramento News and Review seems to be based-upon the Bay Guardian’s model. And seems less development-oriented than the Vanguard, and covers issues such as rent control, the impact of corporate purchases of single-family housing in the region, UC tuition hikes, etc.
https://sacramento.newsreview.com/
Is your world only about development?
Is yours? (In terms of local issues.)
About 5%
I don’t think that percentage is correct, regarding how you cover local issues. And certainly not in regard to your “advocacy”.
Regardless, I see from your subscriber article today that you’re losing interest in local issues, in general. I’ve noticed this before, as well.
Getting back to The Chronicle, the “style” of articles has changed, as well. In that many of them are essentially essays (e.g., examples of individual’s stories), in which the broader point is buried deep in the (extremely-lengthy) article. I’m not sure where this type of reporting began, but I usually lose interest within the first paragraph.
If I’m not mistaken, there’s at least one other publication in San Francisco that is similar to The Bay Guardian.
In any case, Sacramento News and Review is what I’d “normally” expect from a more left-leaning publication. I believe it’s more rounded than the Vanguard, in that sense. Broader coverage, rather than the legal system that the Vanguard is focused on.
The legal system obviously has appeal beyond Davis, which seems to be where your interest and success primarily lies.
Strongly disagree with that take. In terms of my time allocation, it’s probably a lot less than 5%. In terms of the Vanguard resource allocation, it’s far less than 5%. You over notice the housing/ economic development pieces because it’s your interest. But really what is local government? Most of it is land use. Back when I started, Sue Greenwald used to tell me that 75% of her job on the city council was land use. That dropped for a bit during the recession and budget was a bigger battle, but that was a very short period of time.
Also it’s not that I’m losing interest, it’s that I get whacked on all sides on local issues whereas the growth potential of the vanguard is elsewhere. I weigh the time and hassle and sometimes I wonder wtf I’m doing.
Well, if land use issues are “75%” of local issues, wouldn’t approximately “75%” of your local coverage be focused on that? (Or, at least 75% of what you cover regarding council decisions?)
But let’s drop that, as the exact percentage is not really an important point.
In any case, look what I listed for Sacramento News and Review regarding the types of issues that they cover (locally). I only look at it occasionally, but it is broader than what you cover and is less of a development-oriented publication. While still being primarily on “your side”.
Commenters get “whacked”, as well – sometimes by you. As such, they also wonder “wtf” they’re doing. (As I’m doing, as I write this.)
But it is true that your growth potential lies elsewhere, as you’ve already found. And given that you can tap into those pursuing law school, you’ve found a niche. You’ll probably be increasingly connected with successful attorneys (some of whom will be former interns), who will support the Vanguard.
There’s money to be had, in suing police departments and cities.
Don’t get me wrong – I admire that you’ve found a business model which also corresponds with your interests. (Seriously.)
We do too :-\
Perhaps it’s “48 Hills”, but again – I’m not regularly looking at it. In any case, check out the “anti-Wiener” headlines in the following articles:
https://48hills.org/?s=housing
In contrast, the Vanguard is very similar to The Chronicle regarding housing and development issues. And like the Vanguard, The Chronicle presents one-sided articles regarding that issue, which results in an inordinate number of comments (along with arguments “between commenters”) – including the usual personal insults. (Though one can create an anonymous identity if one chooses to do so, in the Chronicle’s comment section.)
Perhaps the real story of today’s journalism is the “subdivision” of political views that the Internet has fostered, especially since so much content is “free” (as opposed to paying for a newspaper delivered to your house every day.) I have noticed, however, that there’s an increasing tendency for newspapers to clamp-down on “free” Internet access. (I don’t think this will work in the long run, as there’s too many other “free” sources.)
But for sure, you can get some “bargain” introductory deals, if you subscribe to some publications. I did so myself, in regard to The Chronicle.
I would assume that there’s at least three reasons for the introductory offers:
1) To show advertisers that some are willing to pay for content.
2) The hope that subscribers will “forget” their bargain-rate introductory offer, and will allow their subscription to remain at a higher cost.
3) Newspapers are desperately searching for a way forward, in the Internet age.
The irony is that Tim is pretty good on criminal justice issues and the Chronicle is bad. So funny that you would say we are similar to the Chronicle.
I’ll keep this short due to the (daily) comment limit, but perhaps your comment points to the division among “progressives” regarding Scott Wiener, YIMBYs, etc. (Again, look at the headlines in the link I provided.)
Perhaps due to the subdivision of ideology enabled by the Internet, among groups that usually share some common concerns.
This difference can also be seen in the Vanguard vs. the Davisite. (Though they have totally different structures.)
I don’t know who Tim is, but I assume he’s the publisher of 48 Hills.
The Chronicle is right-up your alley, regarding “social justice”. Though they did “call out” that one school board member (regarding a controversy which didn’t really involve “white” people) – which I can’t imagine the Vanguard doing.
One does not even need to pay for cable TV service these days, to see network news broadcasts. Paying huge amounts for cable TV is as dead as MTV and the bassist for ZZ Top. (Though the comment regarding MTV is related to what they’ve become in recent years. Pretty much about the same time they moved away from music videos – including those of ZZ Top.)
You have found a way around all of this, using free/cheap student labor, and tapping into a broader movement which has real money – as a result of suing cities and police departments. Those folks are your allies.
The Chronicle has always been a paper more conservative than their readership.
They supported Loftus for DA in 2019: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Suzy-Loftus-for-San-Francisco-district-14471723.php
We have been a largely going to head to head with them on the crime issue. They are an establishment paper, part of the machine, definitely not up my alley in any way.
Seems to me that The Chronicle is a big fan of Wiener and the YIMBYs, as well as using “social justice” arguments in support of housing.
Using a traditionally-conservative “trickle-down” argument, in conjunction with an attempt to disguise that fact in the name of social justice. (Despite gentrification, etc.)
It is ultimately an unabashed conservative argument. And you’ve picked your side, regarding that. As such, the Vanguard and The Chronicle are almost identical regarding that issue.
This comment reflects your worldview rather than mine. My driver is not housing.
We’re making progress, boys! DG admits there is more than one “worldview” !!! 🙂 !!!
Housing is a means to you driver. You think – like, in your worldview it is. And I think it’s quite telling that your blog portends to speak for the oppressed, yet you have a driver, Mx. Daisy. Do you roll down your rear window, seeking Grey Poupon?
“Housing is a means to you driver. You think – like, in your worldview it is. And I think it’s quite telling that your blog portends to speak for the oppressed, yet you have a driver, Mx. Daisy. Do you roll down your rear window, seeking Grey Poupon?”
What?
Look at the comment again (pasted below). I was describing the similarity of the arguments that both the Vanguard and Chronicle use, in support of development.
I am seeing no difference between what you espouse, vs. what The Chronicle and the YIMBYs espouse. Would you care to clarify what you see as the difference?
In contrast, would you ever publish articles such as the ones listed in 48 Hills, criticizing Wiener for example? Seems to me that you’re “quite the fan” of Wiener.
https://48hills.org/?s=housing
Or, do you ever write the type of articles regarding issues such as rent control and corporate single-family home purchases (as the Sacramento News and Review does)?
So, Tim more mirrors your views, and those of who you admire/agree with, and the Chron doesn’t… got it… there of course absolute, demonstrable levels of “good reporting” on criminal justice issues as there is on “bad reporting” on the same issues (or ANY issue, for that matter!)… hadn’t seen those objective absolute guidelines… perhaps you can cite. Not my field…
Big diff between “reporting”, and “journalism”… and “editorializing”…
Has a lot to do with the difference between ‘facts’, ‘spin’ and ‘agenda’… it’s what you do with facts, that distinguish the 3… then you add ‘advocacy journalism’ which is somewhere between the latter 2 (occasionally beyond # 3)… on a sliding scale…
Goes WAY back… Hearst papers in the early 1900’s… hence the term “yellow dog journalism”… probably goes farther back than that… ‘journalism’ was used to fuel “the yellow threat”, the “Jewish conspiracy”, “Red Menace”, etc., for 70-120 years (or more)… across cultures… I suspect those who say they are “reporting”, when they are actually ‘journalizing’, ‘advocate journalizing’ or ‘editorializing’…
Bill Marshall, “reporting”… y’all decide where I am on the spectrum… g’night to all… be well…