Thanks. This is what I wrote to another subscriber, a subject you know a lot more than most: "I'd say the media was sucked in, but we both know that their coverage was based on a conscious decision to try to draw the most eyes and sensationalism and scandal is the way to do it. This is, of course, more of a comment on the choices readers and viewers make than on media outlets competing for advertising dollars. To be fair, I've studied newspapers from the late 19th and early 20th centuries for my books, and pandering is hardly new. But the practice has become much more sophisticated and therefore much more insidious."
Thanks, David. Much appreciated. I'd say the media was sucked in, but we both know that their coverage was based on a conscious decision to try to draw the most eyes and sensationalism and scandal is the way to do it. This is, of course, more of a comment on the choices readers and viewers make than on media outlets competing for advertising dollars. To be fair, I've studied newspapers from the late 19th and early 20th centuries for my books, and pandering is hardly new. But the practice has become much more sophisticated and therefore much more insidious.
Terrific essay
Thanks. This is what I wrote to another subscriber, a subject you know a lot more than most: "I'd say the media was sucked in, but we both know that their coverage was based on a conscious decision to try to draw the most eyes and sensationalism and scandal is the way to do it. This is, of course, more of a comment on the choices readers and viewers make than on media outlets competing for advertising dollars. To be fair, I've studied newspapers from the late 19th and early 20th centuries for my books, and pandering is hardly new. But the practice has become much more sophisticated and therefore much more insidious."
Excellent. The best take on the Trump-Musk tomfoolery as insidious distraction.
Thanks, David. Much appreciated. I'd say the media was sucked in, but we both know that their coverage was based on a conscious decision to try to draw the most eyes and sensationalism and scandal is the way to do it. This is, of course, more of a comment on the choices readers and viewers make than on media outlets competing for advertising dollars. To be fair, I've studied newspapers from the late 19th and early 20th centuries for my books, and pandering is hardly new. But the practice has become much more sophisticated and therefore much more insidious.
Did you see the livestream of the Murrow play yesterday? I was a bit disappointed with it.
Didn't. Saw the film, which I thought was accurate but oddly lacking in pop. Maybe it was too reverential.