Despite all the trashing, despite all the churn of the past couple of decades, despite everything, you’d be vastly less informed without the MSM. And democracy would be vastly weaker. Long may it report. 

End.

Does the MSM have flaws? Of course—many (though not nearly as many as you’d think if you only listened to your ranting uncle, or paid attention to social media, which is pretty much the same thing as a ranting uncle with worldwide reach). But…

4. Credibility and wide reach. Why do those sources talk to an MSM reporter in the first place? Because they know the reporter is very likely to be a) trustworthy and accurate; and b) to work for an outfit that is trustworthy, credible, accurate *and* widely read/followed.

3. Sources. MSM reporters have access to (or certainly try to have access to) people who actually know things, usually developed over years of reporting. Which leads to…

2. Resources. The best investigative work often takes weeks and months of reporting, plus days of editing/copy editing. Plus photos. Plus videos. You think that’s cheap? (See previous product placement announcement).

1. Good reporters. The best and most skilled journalists, despite everything, still work in MSM newsrooms. Fortunately, there’s still enough money to pay them. And enough readers who value their work (product placement: Subscribe today!).

You didn’t read those stories in Breitbart or the Blaze, discover them on a podcast or scroll by ‘em on Instagram (well, eventually you did, once they were reported by others). So how come the old, tired, corrupt MSM keeps telling you all the important things first? Well…

Or @theatlantic.com (and later @nytimes) on Pete Hegseth’s Signal habits? Or the @WSJ on Trump’s (alleged) birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein? Or the Journal’s reporting about the administration’s very shady negotiations with Russia over an Ukraine peace deal? Or a million others?

Things like—Jeez!—the Pentagon is potentially committing war crimes by blowing up helpless survivors of its already questionable boat strikes. Would you know about that if the @washingtonpost hadn’t told you? Nope.

And yet…where do the most important stories still come from? Not “announcements”—those are commodities. Not “breaking news”—good to have a small scoop, but again, a commodity that everyone will (eventually) report. And not “commentary” and opinion—everyone has an opinion…

“Despite everything” covers the changes in the news/info ecosystem of the past 20-25 years. The decline of newspapers, magazines, book publishing, TV news. The rise of partisanship, both among voters and their allied media. Podcasts. Substacks. Social media. Trump trashing. Etc.

Shout out to you, David!

Plus: Editors, copy editors, photographers, etc. Remarkable.

Though at least these people are experienced professionals. Unlike the amateurs online who are making up their own BS.