It's hard to overstate how severely the audience for MSNBC has collapsed with Trump gone. For the key demographic of 25-54, they barely can get 150,000 to watch even their prime time shows (outside of Maddow). More people watch a YouTube show.
CNN's problems are a little different but just as bad. For their prime-time shows, they can barely get 1 million people *total* to watch, including all the old people who make up the vast bulk of cable news watchers for the two liberal networks. Look at this:
Liberal media outlets were dying before Trump came along. He was like some artificial 5-year sugar high that saved all their jobs. But now that he's gone, they're doing as badly as digital liberal media, with *zero* self-critique or attempt to figure out why.
By comparison, the YouTube show Rising with @krystalball & @esaagar gets roughly 1 million viewers a day -- almost all in the young demographic. Why? Because they debate, air dissent, aren't enslaved to DNC/liberal orthodoxies. So with a tiny fraction of the budget, people watch.
Let me show you how liberal media functions to see why it's failing. Yesterday, we published at my Substack platform an article by a veteran freelance reporter that questioned whether "reformist" prosecutors have caused a big increase in violent crime.
The article was one of the few we put behind a paywall, for subscribers only. Nonetheless -- based solely on the headline -- liberal journalists rose up to condemn an article they hadn't read. Why? Because they think journalism should propagnadize for liberalism and hide dissent.
I made clear in the tweets I posted and in the editor's note accompanying the freelance article that I didn't agree with many of those views, but believe the role of journalism is to give readers all information & views so *they* can assess.
Liberal writers think that's a crime.
That's why liberal media sectors are failing, and will all consolidate in NYT & WPost. The belief of standard liberal newsrooms is their core role is to propagandize for US liberalism & DNC: no dissent, no reporting against it, etc. They all sound alike, so nobody reads/watches.
The freelance article we published Sunday by veteran reporter Ralph Cipriano -- "Mounting Violence Casts Doubt Over the Project of Progressive 'Reform' Prosecutors," a critique of Larry Krasner's record as Philadelphia DA -- is now freely available here:
A critique of that article by @BenSpielberg -- "With Larry Krasner Facing Re-Election Tomorrow, Don't Fall For Bad Faith Attacks on Reform Prosecutors" -- is here, with a short response from Cipriano. Airing debates like these is important for journalism:
Since the Intercept is *still* whining about how journalists objected to their abuse of a huge archive of private data on Gab users they got -- claiming we (and me) "lied" -- here's their own description, when begging for donations, of their intentions to target private people:
I'm not on the Intercept's email list (sadly). I learned of this horrific email when an ex-Intercept editor forwarded it to me, furious they were acting like the NSA/FBI: violating privacy, not protecting it.
It's an ongoing pathology in liberal journalism. They think they can do whatever they want to people: make 20-minute films of their faces, baselessly accuse them of grave crimes, dig through their personal data.
But nobody can criticize *them* because doing so "endangers" them.
This isn't some isolated incident of liberal paranoia and bloodthirsty desire to destroy someone's reputation over nothing. It spread among so many Jeopardy alumni because this is the prevailing ethos in liberal culture: on campuses, in newsrooms, in corporations & HR Depts:
Speaking of this sickness and rot at the heart of liberal culture, here's @JamaalBowmanNY candidly admitting he "sometimes regrets" having withdrawn his support for NY Mayoral candidate Scott Stringer based on a single completely unproven accusation:
Credit to Rep. Bowman for acknowledging this, but this is a crazed pathology in liberal culture. They will brand people like Scott Stringer (or whoever) as sexual predators and destroy their reputations for life with zero evidence. It's pernicious.
For Republicans who are pro-Israel: you don't need to worry at all about the posture of the US Govt here. Biden for decades has been one of the most pro-Israel politicians in the country & will fully support the Israeli attacks, as Obama did in 2014.
In 2014, Obama did make noise about concerns over the number of civilians being killed in Gaza and was also concerned about a ground invasion, but was still steadfast in his support for Israel. Biden is vastly more pro-Israel with a much longer record.
Here's the person who is in charge (nominally) of the US Government right now. If you're pro-Israel, the absolute last thing you need to worry about is whether the US Govt under him will fully support everything Israel does: with money, tech, weapons, and rhetoric. You're good.
At some point, journalists are going to need consistent, universally applicable standards that answer this:
Why is it OK to use a billionaire's money to produce a video attacking reporters @Julio_Rosas11 & @VenturaReport, but it's immoral to criticize NYT & Intercept writers?
My view is very clear: any journalist who enters the public discourse and tries to influence political debates is fair game for criticism.
But you can't have a double standard where liberal journalists are sacred & untouchable and only non-liberal journalists can be attacked.
Put another way: if you produce a 20 minute video that has no point but to attack working-class journalists of color who cover a dangerous and violent group that routinely assault reporters, you don't get to whine and self-victimize when people criticize how you did it.
Good @mtracey article asking how and why the new Trump-led Right - which brands itself as both America First and anti-war - not only reflexively sides with Israel but seems to see that country as one of their most important & passionately held priorities:
"Israeli warplanes pounded the Gaza Strip Saturday, killing at least eight children in a refugee camp and flattening a high-rise building housing the offices of international media outlets as Hamas unleashed a new barrage of rockets."
It will be interesting to see how US journalists -- who spent 4 years equating mean tweets and petty insults as some sort of grave attack on press freedom -- talk about this:
I'm really sorry @charlie_savage's huge CIA scoop about Russian bounties -- that misled so many people for so long in very dangerous ways -- fell apart. But attacking me won't save it. Read here about who actually debunked it. CIA isn't a great source:
I guess if I were a NYT reporter who did stenography service for CIA to prolong a war and escalate tensions with a nuclear power, only for it to blow up in my face, I'd also want to pretend it's one person's fault. But everyone pointed it out, not just me
Charlie keeps denying that the reason his CIA friends leaked this story to him about Russian bounties was because they wanted to prevent Trump withdrawing from Afghanistan. I guess it's a *huge coincidence* that the NYT told the CIA tale *one day* before Trump's withdrawal plans: