Media

The Revolving Door Between Government and Cable News

Familiar faces move between government office and media slots, rarely questioning the institution that plays a core role in their lives.

|

When former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders joined Fox News as a contributor last week, her announcement was greeted with a predictable flurry of jokes about the minimal difference between her new role at the conservative network and her old job for the Trump administration. But she was hardly the first government official of either major political faction to find a new perch in the media—or to move the other way, for that matter. It's all part of the creeping merger between the political class and the journalists supposedly tasked with subjecting government to scrutiny.

That kind of close relationship between the public and the nominally private sector isn't new. The revolving door between government and lobbying has long seen officials, both elected and appointed, move from powerful jobs regulating industry to well-paid jobs glad-handing their old colleagues on behalf of regulated industries. Although it troubles seemingly everybody, the relationship is inevitable given the power of the state and the need by companies to cultivate insider contacts to beg (or pay) for special favors or just leniency when navigating red tape.

But the lobbying business evolved to formalize contacts between officials and industry that were going to take place anyway. The flow of faces and names between government and "news" media has turned what was supposed to be a watchdog over the destructive power of the state into little more than a forum for political marketing and an extended battleground for factional fighting.

Hours after Huckabee announced her deal with Fox New, CNN revealed a similar relationship with former FBI deputy director and Trump antagonist Andrew McCabe. McCabe might well look up former colleagues from the FBI Josh Campbell and James Gagliano, since they also hold plum positions with the network and share common sentiments about the current resident of the White House.

From the intelligence community comes former CIA director John Brennan, who has a sweet deal with NBC as a senior national security and intelligence analyst—duties that make him a counterpart to his predecessor, Michael Hayden, at CNN. James Clapper, who lied to Congress about warrantless domestic spying when he was director of national intelligence, also landed a nice job at CNN as a national security analyst.

"National security veterans thrive under TV's grow lights" in numbers "almost too numerous to list" Politico's Jack Shafer noted last year.

More pedestrian members of the political class thrive, too, as exemplified by Huckabee's hiring at Fox News. Former Trump aide Hope Hicks is at Fox Corporation, as well as her one-time deputy, Raj Shah.

More people have moved in the other direction, including Bill Shine, who left Fox to work at the White House before shifting to Trump's reelection campaign. Heather Nauert left the network to join the administration and was briefly considered for appointment as UN ambassador. Ben Carson, now Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and John Bolton, now National Security Adviser, were both Fox News contributors before their current administration jobs.

Tom Homan took quite a spin through the revolving door, serving as acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement director under Trump before taking as gig as a Fox News contributor and then returning to the administration as "border czar."

"They are joined at the hip," Fox News personality Juan Williams says of his employer and the Trump White House.

Which you might also say of CNN anchor Chris Cuomo regarding his interview with brother Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York. Hard-hitting stuff, that.

Fox leans right and pro-Trump while most of the rest of the news media leans left and anti-Trump, and the outlets' chosen representatives of the political class publicly spar over which faction should operate the mechanisms of government power. Whether those mechanisms should exist at all isn't something that commonly comes up. James Clapper certainly has few qualms about the surveillance state, Tom Homan doesn't ponder the wisdom of strict border controls, and Andrew McCabe is a lousy candidate for examining the excesses of law enforcement, just as Sarah Huckabee Sanders isn't likely to question executive overreach.

Their big disagreement is over who should be in charge, not what they should be in charge of.

Former cops, spooks, and politicians "remain protective of their institutions. This makes nearly every word that comes out of their mouths suspect," Politico's Shafer commented in his 2018 piece. "Imagine a TV network covering the auto industry through the eyes of dozens of paid former auto executives and you begin to appreciate the current peculiarities."

Put that way, the vitriolic fulminating at the networks over policies, official conduct, and political outcomes has very little to do with informing members of the viewing audience about current events and the wisdom or lack thereof in various proposals. Instead, it's all about jockeying for position among factions vying for power, attempts to win over the public to one side or another, and petty sniping between those temporarily out of power and those momentarily in charge. Any information gleaned, beyond the current temperament of the players, is almost beside the point.

True, the incestuous relationship between elite media and the people they cover, socialize with, and sleep with isn't a recent development. "Every administration draws in a few journalists, typically as speechwriters and press secretaries, a natural given the overlapping skills," The Washington Post reported in 2013. "But Obama may be different in terms of the sheer number of ink-stained wretches and other news-media denizens that he has attracted."

The problem clearly hasn't slowed under a new administration from a different party. Instead, familiar faces move from government office to media slots and back again in copious numbers, sorting according to the outlets that represent their factions and distorting "news" coverage of the government that plays a core role in their lives.

We'd be better off if they all took jobs as lobbyists. That might leave a little more room for actual scrutiny of the government.

NEXT: Trump-Critical Journalists Targeted by Outrage Mobs Armed With Old Tweets

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. ‘The press’ as remembered by the author has not existed for decades.
    Propaganda is propaganda. Absent two or more named, reliable, verifiable sources, anything put out by a “news organization” is pure speculation tinged by politics. There is no person named ‘reliable source’, ‘white house official’, or ‘administration source’.
    And no, regurgitating another propaganda outlet is not citing a source. (esp. NYT & WaPo)

    1. I think you misread how much Tuccille “remembers” the non-existent non-partian press.

      1. I misread the part about George Stephanopoulos. Although, to be fair, I guess he wasn’t a cable news analyst or commentator but merely a network anchor.

        1. Or the revolving door under the previous president with one of his chief aides bragging to the NYT how easy it was to push false propaganda out.

        2. Let’s not forget Jake Tapper.

    2. It’s worse than that even. Most “news” these days is sourced from someone’s Twitter feed.

      1. When I see some article saying “many” or “some” people are really feel _____ way about _____ issue, followed up by a parade of embedded tweets as evidence, the publication automatically gets categorized as “tabloid” in my mind. No better than the bogus rags you see in the checkout line at your local grocery store.

        1. Bingo….our “unbiased” media on both sides has created a new “news” industry that’s entirely based on opinions couched as actual news.

  2. I’ll go one further, if you were to draw a venn diagram of reporters, politicians, dc bureaucrats and lobbying organizations, with what industries their spouses and relatives were in they would overlap so completely you’d think they were fucking their cousins.

  3. what was supposed to be a watchdog over the destructive power of the state
    Since when????
    Except for a few years in the mid 20th century, organized “press” has always had a bias. And even when it said it was “fair”, it wasn’t necessarily true.
    The “press” was never supposed to be a watchdog. The people, who had the freedom of the printing press were. All of us who were willing to put our thoughts, opinions, and any facts we may discover out into the public forum.
    I don’t fucking care that press secretaries from Republican administrations go to Fox news, just like Dems go to MSNBC, CNN, networks, etc.

    1. The people, who had the freedom of the printing press were.

      That’s the real failure. The people were supposed to be wary of government itself and protective of liberty. And instead we are only wary of the other side getting control of government and using the same anti-liberty tools we ourselves gave govt when it was our side dicking around with the other guy’s liberty.

  4. It all comes down to the same old problem: government is too big. The more it intrudes in daily life, the more people put their resources into influencing government than minding their own business.

    Local, state, and federal governments spend around $9T a year. That’s 40% of GDP. Government officials would have to be incredibly altruistic and self-sacrificing to NOT take jobs in businesses they had relationships with. Private employees who change employers seldom start brand new careers; it would be bizarre to expect government employees to do the same. Further, government officials who started their government career after 20 years in an industry are going to go right back into that industry when the administration changes and kicks them to the curb. What else would they do?

    1. “It all comes down to the same old problem: government is too big. The more it intrudes in daily life, the more people put their resources into influencing government than minding their own business.”

      This is the problem that needs to be resolved. I’m not going to be holding my breath waiting on a resolution, far too many people are invested in maintaining the status quo.

      1. What’s worse is nobody has a clue what to do about it. The fiscal right (establishments) piss and moan a lot, wringing their hands, but … never a solution, on anything

        1. Most of the “fiscal right” are the RINOs lying that they are fiscally conservative. Heck, even Clinton sounded like a fiscal conservative in the debates, but she was lying as usual.

          I agree, government’s too big, especially its increasing power in commerce where it picks winners and losers, usually depending on who ponies up the most campaign cash. But then, that’s what we’ve collectively voted for. The key to reducing government, it to vote in politicians that will do it, not those promising to give you free stuff, or to protect you from yourself at your expense.

          1. The key to reducing government, it to vote in politicians that will do it,

            Can’t do it without specific policies, and we may have agreed that nobody has any. I count mainly the think tanks, like Caro, and foundations. Politicians are mostly salespeople … not policy wonks (not since Jack Kemp, nearly 40 years ago).

            those promising to give you free stuff,

            They both do that,
            Democrats borrow trillions to pay for … their stuff is free benefits.
            Republicans borrow trillions to pay for … their stuff is free tax cuts.
            Both stealing from our kids and grandkids … without them having any say over it.

      2. I don’t think it’s that people want to maintain the status quo so much as no one is interested in giving up the little leverage they have unless everyone else gives up their leverage too. And since all leverage is unique, there is no way to compare them or to reduce everybody’s leverage by 90% or even 10%, so there’s no way to even begin reducing leverage. It’s ratcheted up, and that is how government grows.

        1. That’s probably a better explanation than mine. Thanks.

          1. It doesn’t answer your question though,how to reduce it.

            I sometimes imagine some political movement of people fed up with the status quo and resolving to only vote for spending cutters. Then I remember the Tea Party and how easily it was distracted by Trump, simply because he has been, in many ways, the most honest President we’ve ever had. And he beat Hillary, which makes him a saint.

            What if someone ran on a platform of cutting government down to one tenth its current scale? Abolish most Cabinet positions, shrink the military and even entitlements. Suppose the populace were so thoroughly disgusted they actually voted him in?

            I don’t think it would happen. If the populace were that disgusted, they’d vote for an established figure first, someone who jumped on the bandwagon … like Trump.

            I just don’t see any way to shrink government.

            The only way out I can see is that technology continues changing so much faster than government that more and more of daily life moves into the dark web and crypto currency that the government can’t even see it, let alone do anything about it, and the meat space government gradually fades into insignificance. The money it sucks up becomes so little that most people are only vaguely aware that it even exists.

            1. What if someone ran on a platform of cutting government down to one tenth its current scale? Abolish most Cabinet positions, shrink the military and even entitlements. Suppose the populace were so thoroughly disgusted they actually voted him in?

              They’d laugh him of the stage.
              And that’s a really horrible example.

              What if a pro-liberty libertarian (not today’s anti-gummint goobers) had more brains than a box of rocks … so knew that “Only taxpayers will EVER drain the swamp” … with a comprehensive platform of policy proposals?

              The biggest obstacle is the massive subsidies of the middle-class , paid by the rich.

              I just don’t see any way to shrink government.

              There are dozens, none of which the GOP and its followers have a clue about, as I said.

              1. You are pretty damned lousy at reading. What part of “Suppose” and “actually voted him in” was not clear?

                I didn’t see any of the “dozens” of your suggestions you claim to know of and claim to have “said”. I personally can think of thousands, and if I had a budget in front of me and the time, I could come up with millions. But I don’t claim to have listed any.

                1. You are pretty damned lousy at reading. What part of “Suppose” and “actually voted him in” was not clear?

                  Repeat: “And that’s a really horrible example.”

                  I didn’t see any of the “dozens” of your suggestions you claim to know of and claim to have “said”.

                  So who’s the shitty reader? How old were you 25-40 years ago?
                  What I SAID said was, “none of which the GOP and its followers have a clue about, as I said.” I said it here.
                  https://reason.com/2019/08/26/the-revolving-door-between-government-and-cable-news/#comment-7909470

                  I personally can think of thousands, and if I had a budget in front of me and the time, I could come up with millions.

                  You don’t know what a policy is, as opposed to a wish. And you’ve just done what you accuse politicians of doing.

                  But I don’t claim to have listed any.

                  Now has anyone else, that I’ve noticed. Might that be your same reading failure I linked to?

              2. What if a pro-liberty libertarian (not today’s anti-gummint goobers) had more brains than a box of rocks … so knew that “Only taxpayers will EVER drain the swamp” … with a comprehensive platform of policy proposals?

                What does that mean, specifically? What are the platform of policy proposals, specifically?

                1. There are so many. Name an issue

                  The biggest for taxpayers draining the swamp, fix what failed with Reagan’s New Federalism. You remember that, right? First priority is to consolidate ech safety net program at one level of government, so somebody can be held accountable. The fix has each state deciding which programs it wants 100% of control and funding. Laboratories of democracy. Then, every 10 years, separately for each program. voters go out for bids on each program, state vs federal. MAKE them compete for the coin of their realm. Power.

                  Overall, advancing liberty always shrinks or limits government, back toward free markets.
                  Slashing government can have achieve the exact opposite of free market outcomes. Good example is Medicaid. The free market outcome was universal treatment, regardless of income, paid for willingly by people since the 1500s. ONE pro-liberty solution would transition back to that. Must be a transition, because the entire charitable infrastructure must be rebuilt.

                  Simplest is a 100% tax credit for donations to … actually any life support charity. The timing is thus timed to the pace of rebuilding.

                  The anti-gummint types are ANTI-liberty, by slashing or eliminating Medicaid, Which is WHY progressives have been kicking our ass for decades, in the court of public opinion.

                  Do the math. If Bernie and Elizabeth are the only ones claiming to provide what people have always been willing to pay for …. who wins? Self-evident?

                  For the BIG picture, people want 95% of more of what government provides … so only authoritarians would DARE to go against will of the people and consent of the governed, THAT is why fiscal conservatives — libertarian and conservative — have fucked up by going anti-government.

                  Elementary. If you don’t want government doing something, show how to do it better, or shut up and sit down. Even Ayn Rand, super extremist, agreed,

                  Problem is, so many on the right have no clue what they’ve lost.

              3. Only the Congress matters in that context. The Congress decides where and how much money will be spent.

              4. The biggest obstacle is the massive subsidies of the middle-class , paid by the rich.

                Keep in mind that Dumbfuck Hihnsano was chimping out here a few weeks ago about how we needed mass third-world immigration to preserve Social Security.

                1. Red Rocks White Privilege
                  Keep in mind that Dumbfuck Hihnsano was chimping out here a few weeks ago about how we needed mass third-world immigration to preserve Social Security.

                  You deny we’ve had negative replacement birthrates for over 10 years … as has the entire developed world? Not my problem.

                  That means a declining population, with any severe cuts in immigration. In about 30-50 years, the entire world will see declining population. Do the math. Countries will be competing for immigrants. The math is quite simple, if one is informed on the facts.

                  NONE of what you say has even a remote connection to the massive middle-class subsidies I mentioned…. most of which are roughly half their entire federal income tax burden … and about 25% of Medicare.

                  My point was that failing to know that is a major obstacle to expanding individual liberty, as the best way to shrink government. Voters tend to like answers. which they almost never get, these days.

            2. Trump, simply because he has been, in many ways, the most honest President we’ve ever had

              He’s well over 12.000 documented lies, 13 for every day he’s been in office.

    2. It’s $7 trillion in spending, for all levels of government
      https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_chart

      1. Notice it says “guesstimated”. Last time I checked, several years ago, it was over $8T, and it sure hasn’t gone down any. I suspect your site is not counting something, such as entitlements. After all, social security pensions are paid by payroll tax, not government, right?

        1. Notice it says “guesstimated”.

          The word is a link, Click it, but I explain later. …

          I suspect your site is not counting something, such as entitlements.

          I know how to find sources which
          exclude intra-government transfers, which is critical for counting all levels of government.

          For example, a $100 billion transfer from federal to state is counted as $100 billion in federal spending. When the states spends it, $100 billion is counted as state spending. That’s double-counting.

          The difficulty is explained in he link you never clicked.

          After all, social security pensions are paid by payroll tax, not government, right?

          Social Security is not the only entitlement. And it’s funded by the FICA tax ,… as is half of Medcare.

          Anything else?

      2. How much of that spending was approved by the dem controlled house?

        1. (lol) And the GOP Senate??
          Don’t forget, Trump is now the worst President ever in deficits. Already added more new debt than Obama did after 8 years, and threatens much more.

          Even worse, Obama inherited the 2nd worst economy since the 1930s, but handed Trump the longest recovery ever, for an incoming President.

          This from Fox News

          FOX NEWS: Trump in big trouble for 2020. Political and economic warning signs there for all to see

          The strong economy Trump touts is anything but and the signs are obvious.

          First, Trump cut taxes and said it would pay for itself. Instead, it has exploded the deficit.
          *President Barack Obama inherited a trillion-dollar budget deficit in 2009, but it was down to $600 billion by the time he left office.
          *In just two years, thanks to tax cuts, Trump has taken the deficit back to a trillion dollars.

          Left – Right = Zero

          1. “”(lol) And the GOP Senate??””

            Sure. But I acknowledge the deficits and debt are a bipartisan affair.

            1. Then why ask the question?
              And do you acknowledge that Trump’s GOP is the worst EVER on deficits and debt — starting from the longest recovery ever??

              1. “”And do you acknowledge that Trump’s GOP is the worst EVER on deficits and debt — starting from the longest recovery ever??””

                If I did then left – right would not equal zero.

                1. If I did then left – right would not equal zero.

                  Only if you flunked Algebra … in the 7th grade.

                  The equation says Left and Right have EQUAL value.
                  And you just proved it correct … by DENYING Trump is the worst President EVER on debt and deficits … after Obama handed him the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President.I

                  I don’t wish to imply that you have no right to place party loyalty above your loyalty to America.

  5. Billion-dollar news organizations, like any large business, focus first of all, on the bottom line. More viewership/readership = more money. And celebrities attract viewers and readers. It’s really not that complicated.

    1. Except that billionaires, usually ones looking for government favors that increase their wealth substantially, are willing to take a loss on a news business they control, to gain even more on their other businesses. Their stories, help them get those government favors, including favors like not investigating a politician, not running negative stories on them and so on. Plus, it’s easy to offer cushy network jobs to the politically powerful, to get those favors.

      1. So how do they get suckred into subsidizing roughly half the entire share of the core middle class ($40,000-99,999) personal income tax.

        Why do progs believe that a $50,000 worker pays higher income tax (avg 8.5%) than millionaires and billionaires (avg 28.1%)?

        1. Haha. Well, that is a good question.

          Answer: ugly resentment.

          1. Yeah, and Republicans believe income tax revenues “skyrocketed” after the Reagan tax cuts … or that tax cuts have ever paid for themselves (how Trump became the worst ever on debt and deficits.)

            1. Whatever. That wasn’t the question. The question was why do progs think the $50,000 person pays more than the rich to support our bloated government. I really don’t care about which side spends more. And I don’t think “paying for tax cuts”even makes sense. We all pay for government. A tax cut is not a gift.

              1. And I don’t think “paying for tax cuts”even makes sense.

                Does it make more sense to steal the money from our kids and grandkid … without them, having a say in it?

                I know the question because I’m the one who posed it.

  6. I’d get outraged but this started in full force under Bill Clinton. Tony Snow, former Fox News contributor said that at CNN you were “literally tripping over former Clinton officials” in the major media (while fully admitting he himself had previously worked for the Bush administration).

    1. You’re mistaken “this started in full force under Bill Clinton”. It started at least decades earlier. Consider Bill Moyers who served under LBJ as the White House Press Secretary. This revolving door, is simply how the government captured the media, and is very similar to how regulated businesses capture the regulatory agencies (something not new readers of Reason should be familiar with).

      OpenSecrets.com has a page on the revolving door, and one with a list of members of Congress who have the most staffers revolving into such jobs: and it’s dominated by the political leaders with McConnell and Schumer having the most.

      1. Thanks for the opensecrets link!

        1. It should be opensecrets.ORG (caps for emphasis)

  7. More right-wing propaganda for the conspiracy crowd. Like most libertarians, I watch and read both sides, the only way to avoid tribal brainwashing.

    CNN has balanced left-right panels on every commentary show (not straight news). Fox NEWS has the least amount of straight news, and virtually never a balanced panel. Might that be why Donald Trump won’t allow his cult to watch CNN?

    Fox and MSNBC are both obscenely balanced, but among the shrinking number of tribal loyalists in America …….

    1. Fox, CNN, MSNBC appear to be equally balanced to me. And by that, I mean totally unbalanced.

      Any semblance of balance by any of the big three seem to be cherry-picking some third-rate talking head from the other side. IE Joe Scarbrough or Juan Williams.

      I do agree that hearing the bias from both sides is probably the best that you can hope for. Unfortunately, I think it’s rare for voters to even listen to the other side, let alone seek out their viewpoint.

      1. I should add that inherent in this discussion is the false idea that there are only 2 sides to a given debate. Or that either side necessarily arrives at the “libertarian position” (insomuch as there is one) through any principled approach that values individual liberty.

      2. You obviously never watch CNN. Scarborough and Williams misses the point. Scarborough is the only one on MSNBC who has balanced left-right discussion panels, but his and Mika’s tend to have mostly the same people.

        CNN often has 3-4 different balanced (left-right) discussion panels in an hour. A different panel for each major topic, panelists with expertise in the given topic. Ken Cuccinelli, the latest immigration wacko, was quite a regular on CNN.

        Believing politicians on the news is like believing them on … anything!

        1. You must watch way too much CNN f you think they are balanced. No news organization is balanced.

          1. COMMENTARY. And you must watch nothing at all

        2. I guess I’ll take your word on it, as I don’t watch that much TV news. I’m certainly no expert.

          When I do watch CNN on occasion, it sure feels like the inverse of Fox to me. 1-2 left-leaning pundits plus a left-leaning moderator ganging up on whoever is the token conservative talking head.

          1. I’ve known from the start that you know absolutely nothing bout CNN.

            1. Isn’t that the news station they made for the airports?

        3. “”CNN often has 3-4 different balanced (left-right) discussion panels in an hour””

          Does the right ever produce a good valid argument? The few times I’ve watched CNN, they seem to have a token righty that can’t make a good argument, then the left beats them up. It seems that the right is their to make the point on why they are wrong, and why the left is superior.

          “”Ken Cuccinelli, the latest immigration wacko, was quite a regular on CNN.””

          This is kinda what I’m talking about. Lefties see him as a wacko, so put the wacko on so the opposite team looks good.

          1. “”right is their”‘

            Their, there.

          2. Lefties see him as a wacko, so put the wacko on so the opposite team looks good.

            It’s the Archie Bunker ploy. Little do they know that the one playing the role of Meathead often looks just as stupid.

        4. If you think Joe Scarborough balances a panel on MSNBC, you’re mistaken. He claims to be a Republican, which is only true as far as the RINOs go, because he never offers the limited government viewpoint, leaving the panel completely unbalanced. As a libertarian, I see most of the MSM totally ignoring the limited government libertarian viewpoint. Scarborough is the fake token conservative, to advertise a “balanced” panel, so they don’t have to present the libertarian or limited government side to an issue. That’s my take.

          1. If you think Joe Scarborough balances a panel on MSNBC, you’re mistaken. He claims to be a Republican,Read it again. Slowly

            His show has balanced panels. Fox never does, which proves that you’re no libertarian. Also shown by “RINO” and “MSM.”

  8. Same goes with publishers. How many people and left leaning politicians are given millions to write shitty books between elections or after they leave government? Open bribery for the most part.

  9. —————–TV ADS——————
    I am developing a first rate half of time financial advantage from home with the aid of using running my PC . I even have used an internet system and presently I clearly have created $18987 This month. all of us of you’ll be Able to use this home income device and earn extra from intention Half Time. test this website for added data regarding developing cash….but earlier than this you need to visist the following website online …
    ►►HOME► MEDIA► TECH►AND more thank you

    ════HERE►►►__MORE INFORMATION__

  10. don’t remember hearing Juan Williams ever deride his Fox paycheck

    1. He has nightmares about the total shame of having to work for Fox.
      Remember the only reason he is NOT working for every left wing rag on the planet is he admitted in public that Muslims made him nervous. Full and immediate boycott from the left, not a job in sight. He only works for Fox because the alternatives are starvation or honest work.

      1. Yeah I occasionally watch The Five, which he’s on. More and more he makes personal attacks towards his co-hosts.

      2. I don’t usually agree with Williams, but I respect him, and usually respect his point of view. I give him credit, unlike most of the liberals in the MSM, because he’s not still telling us, that Trump colluded with Russia like many in the media still are.

        Any reporter who still makes that claim, is a Democrat propagandist that doesn’t care about their reputation for honesty, and instead care about showing they are reliable mouthpieces for Democrats, and expect to get hired for that. So I went to the MSNBC website and searched on “Russia collusion” looking for an article showing Mueller’s report found no evidence Trump colluded with Russia. I didn’t find anything close instead I found:
        “After Mueller’s testimony, Trump concocts an alternate reality”
        “Barr offers a new reason to question his Russia scandal perspective”
        “Fox News veteran rips ‘conman’ Trump for Russia ‘collusion'”
        “Trump slams Mueller after Special Counsel doesn’t exonerate him”
        “It’s not just Trump: Mueller didn’t do Barr any favors, either”
        “Chris Hayes: ‘Trump colludes with Putin out in the open'”
        “Trump finds a new way to lie about Russia scandal, Mueller report”
        “Trump finds a new way to lie about Russia scandal, Mueller report”

        Where’s the balance? There isn’t any.

  11. Historically, to the extent the press were watchdogs over the entire political scene, it was only in the aggregate of each faction’s cheerleaders. It was not a conscious effort by a multitude of determinedly disinterested publishers.

    This is a return to an older journalistic form updated for 21st Century media technologies.

  12. The corporate press is the enemy of the people

    1. Perhaps. But that is what we put up with to ensure that free speech endures. Ultimately, It is the responsibility for individuals to self-inform and decide, from the various viewpoints available, what viewpoint “holds water.”

  13. Martha Raddatz went from ABC reporter to paid Obamacare cheerleader back to ABC reporter. Nobody noticed.

    1. Happens at the local level, too. The press secretary for the current governor of New Mexico worked for several years at the Santa Fe New Mexican.

  14. So the answer to this alleged problem is – – -?
    More federal regulations?
    Less federal regulations?
    Less press?
    No press? (ah,sweet liberty)
    Press on regardless?
    Or just continue to ignore the media?

    1. The real answer to the problem, is for government to have less scope and power, like being limited to protecting us from others who harm us.

      Then, there has been a movement whereby politicians pledge to not become lobbyists for several years. Public Citizen, also a lobbying organization, advocates for that. It should include pledges for staff to not become lobbyists for at least 4 years (I think that’s reasonable).

      The bottom line is the less politicians have to sell that is of value to the rich, the less will be bought. We can’t really stop things like defense contractors lobbying for more money to their firm because we need defense equipment. But we could eliminate the need for lobbying for “social welfare”, and in other commerce, government regulation in preference to free markets.

      1. How will you get elected on that?

  15. So basically, with the article America admitted their so called “free press” is yet another lie.
    Thank you.

  16. I don’t care what their background or politics are as long their opinions or reporting are intelligent & valid, that they can communicate effectively using proper english and without their body language & tone of voice or writing revealing their coercive biases, AND DON’T LIE to ME. I’m very selective about who I pay attention to. Their are ignoramuses on all media platforms whose only qualifications seems to be that they have can seem passionate/emotional or are pretty/handsome/dignified (Ted Baxter)/have an appealing voice, or some other irrelevant characteristic, but mostly because they were “connected” to a political power source at one time or another. These characteristics are not necessarily disqualifying for me. I just go back to my criteria as judged over time that their opinions or reporting must be intelligent & valid. There are fewer of them on “legacy media” like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, WP, ect.. than there are on so-called “conservative” platforms.

  17. I guess I’ll take your word on it, as I don’t watch that much TV news. I’m certainly no expert.

  18. I don’t interested to watch TV but in your blog , I always come

Please to post comments