Thread by @jayrosen_nyu

No one thinks this pairing the least bit strange— but I do. Teaming up for the next debate are what passes for public media in the US: the PBS @NewsHour, nominally supposed to address the public as a whole, and @politico, designed to appeal to insiders and the political class. 1/

https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1199776452289482753

The fact that journalists from the PBS @NewsHour can mesh smoothly with @politico doesn't even register as odd. Which is itself odd. Think about it: Why is the kind of journalism supported by foundations, viewer contributions and the Corporation for Public Brodcasting... 2/

... so similar to another style of journalism that from the beginning was meant to appeal to the political class? Politico was created for the "junkies," the portion of the audience that loves the game of politics. That should be the OPPOSITE of the PBS audience. But it isn't. 3/

How did this happen? My view is that political journalism took a wrong turn in the 1970s and 80s. The profession of reporting on politics began to pitch itself to people who were either inside the game or fascinated by it. The public systems, PBS and NPR, were too weak to— 4/

— resist this pull. They lacked a strong public purpose distinct from commercial providers of news. So 40 years later, when the opportunity comes to team up with Politico (insider news for the political class) there is nothing in the culture of PBS that would recoil from that. 5/

Remember when Judy Woodruff moved from CNN to NewsHour? I do. She did not have to adjust one bit. She just kept doing the news the way she had always done it. Because there is no real difference between the public and commercial systems. The PBS + Politico debate proves that. END