Said Margaret Sullivan, quoted in the Vanity Fair article "'CALL IT A SELF-IMPOSED TERM LIMIT': WHY MEDIA CRITIC MARGARET SULLIVAN IS EXITING THE WASHINGTON POST/After a decade writing columns puncturing—and praising—the press, the ex–New York Times public editor and departing Post columnist will be teaching at Duke and pursuing book projects, including a fictional series about a laid-off local journalist solving crimes."
I don't know why she said "I do feel that the media column had run its course." Did she mean that she's done what she could with her column or that we don't need media columns anymore? We at least need people to point out sloppy ambiguity. I'd say the media column hasn't been strong enough. Is WaPo replacing her? If so, why? To get someone nicer or someone stronger? If now, is it because it's been decided that the work is done (the work they want is done)?
Whatever happened to the NYT public editor? That's a position that began in 2003 and had a succession of columnists until 2017. Sullivan was second to last. When the last one, Liz Spayd, signed off, she said:
[W]ho will be watching, on this subject or anything else, if [the NYT and The Washington Post] don’t acquit themselves well? At The Times, it won’t be the public editor. As announced on Wednesday, that position is being eliminated, making this my last column. Media pundits and many readers this week were questioning the decision to end this role, fearing that without it, no one will have the authority, insider perspective or ability to demand answers from top Times editors. There’s truth in that. But it overlooks a larger issue.... having an institution that is willing to seriously listen to... criticism, willing to doubt its impulses and challenge the wisdom of the inner sanctum.
Posts
25 comments:
Maybe she is sick of being a mouthpiece for this pathetic administration, and knows that people don't believe the Washington Posts lies and cover ups anymore...so time to get a REAL job before her name is toast??
Speaking of giving anonymity to a highly politicized source, what if WaPo had disclosed that “Deep Throat” was a butthurt FBI official who hated Nixon for not giving him Hoover’s position?
The media, like our politicians don't take kindly to criticism. Particularly from within their own ranks. In the media, they simply eliminate the positions and point in another direction. Look! Over there! A new bright shiny object to talk about." In the political world, it's pretty clear that they can both eliminate your job, and continue to harass you, and send the full police state after you.
This is the new era of life in America. It's not so much a free state as it is a State where you're either a part of it or apart from it.
You would have made a fine media critic, Ann. So sorry that time in our society has passed.
This is all a continuation of the post-Internet breakdown of media as gatekeepers of "facts, knowledge, and truth." Following yellow journalism a century ago, the major newspapers and TV networks had a period of extreme power. They were de facto state media, and controlled everything from wars to taxes to narrow social policies.
It is possible today to have another WW2 event, where many countries across the world agreed to "total war" and the loss of millions of lives? WW2 required (1) a narrow tribal in-group perspective aka Nationalism, (2) pre-nuclear small scale weapons, and (3) de facto state control over media to instill a common purpose and rally support within each group.
This era was followed by post-Marshall Plan blind globalization, where working with foreign governments and forcing "diversity" was imagined to avoid war and future problems. That vision ended certainly by Sept 11, and continues to fall apart with Brexit, Trump, and Russia/China expansionism.
So now, we are left with legacy media outlets that still have huge egos and dreams of power, but limited control. Columnists used to get a lot of attention, but now there are many thousands of similar quality.
Opinions are like a**holes, as everyone's got one. This has always been true, but now we can easily hear opinions from everyone. Some small fish commentators are demonstrably better than the gatekeepers. Ironically the Communist dream came true, as the elite lost control of the means of media production. So, the old gatekeepers became the bubble-dwelling totalitarian bullies they are today.
She got fired. She had to make something up to rationalize taking that job at Duke.
She seems to say no matter what she points out wrt media failings, they persist. There has been no noticeable change in the writing practices, so why waste time continuing to point them out? It’s a lost cause.
Imagine there is no Washington Post. It’s easy if you try. No more having to constantly push back against their lies. I used to subscribe to the print edition of “The Economist.” There were whole sections of the paper apart from politics that I enjoyed. But then the whole thing got steeped in politics and partisan politics at that. Maybe it’s just time for some of these venerable publications to just die.
I hear similar sentiments from those who, like her, retire at age 65 (or older). Some
mix of hope for the future, admiration for the good colleagues, but mostly tired of the bullshit.
"I don't know why she said "I do feel that the media column had run its course." Did she mean that she's done what she could with her column or that we don't need media columns anymore?"
Maybe it's because it's extremely difficult to defend the indefensible. Or maybe all future columns will be rated on the Pinochio system. In any case, off to Duke she goes to teach young skulls full of mush how to process leaks from the feds against conservatives.
I often find myself in awe of the work being produced [at The Washington Post].
I’m always brought up short by statements like this. Is she blinded by her insider perspective? Does she take in so much information about the place that she loses sight of the lies and betrayals? Is she lying, saying it not because she means it, but because she feels she has to? Does she really not understand why we hate them? Could she really be so obtuse?
Comparable to Sullivan's leaving and the Times eliminating the public editor's position was Glenn Kessler's refusal to keep a running count of Biden's lies, as he did with Trump's "lies" (many of which weren't lies at all). Biden's falsehoods go largely unnoticed by the legacy media. All of these ombudsman-like positions are being caponized and Stelterized.
Columnists used to get a lot of attention, but now there are many thousands of similar quality.
Very true. There's been a democratization of the opinion sphere, and this frightens the old media, all the more so since they aren't the most intelligent, most acute, most accurate or most honest observers and interpreters of what's going on.
I contend that the Washington Post has run it's course.
"Jersey Fled said...
I contend that the Washington Post has run it's course."
Winner. And sad, because the WP was once a legitimate news organization.
"the too-frequent anonymity given to sources with highly politicized motives"
Now she tells us. Like the addict lamenting all the horrible things she did in the past. All sober now! Of course, when the anonymous sources suit the prog narrative, from Watergate to the Russia collusion hoax, WaPo eagerly ingests the fentanyl. No 12-step program can cure that prog addiction.
"no one will have the authority, insider perspective or ability to demand answers from top Times editors. There’s truth in that. But it overlooks a larger issue.... having an institution that is willing to seriously listen to... criticism, willing to doubt its impulses and challenge the wisdom of the inner sanctum."
Right. Since the whole public editor shtick was always phony make-believe in the first place, the only significant thing here is that prog media feel they no longer need the pretense. Of course they don't listen to criticism, of course they don't doubt their impulses, of course they'll push The Narrative as they damn well please. They wallow in their hegemony. They like it.
Even as Althouse accepts it, and would never be so radical as to question the prog system as such, she has done more to challenge their wisdom than any MSM flunky.
Long live the podcast.
So she's going to do a 2/1 or less while ripping off students and taxpayers by writing her novels on the public dime. Fitting ending for a spineless shill. Maybe her first detective story can be about a crooked ex-journalist stealing education money.
I wrote a monthly column in a trade magazine for almost 10 years. It's really cool to have a named column but it is a lot of pressure.
Writing 500 words is easy. Coming up with a new idea to write about every month can be a ball-breaker.
I was almost glad when the mag was sold and they canceled my column.
Otoh, I did get a book out of it free pdf version www.fraingroup.com/ebook also available on Amazon via Ann's portal
So if she says she was getting tired, I sympathize.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
In my dreams, the column is now written by Ann Althouse (who has it in her contract that she has final edit authority--and that she will be paid for the full year even if she is fired).
Damn, just when I was about to start writing my series of novels about laid-off local journalists solving crimes. I saw that need too!
Rats leaving sinking ship... Film at eleven
I do feel that the media column had run its course
You can't keep writing a column demanding change that never comes.
Eventually readers stop paying attention to your impotence.
The media column has "Run its course" because the MSM no longer needs to appease anyone on the Center-right. They're thrown off any pretense of being objective, or not being Leftwing/DNC shills.
The original purpose was so they could point to the "media column" as an example of how they cared about objective journalism standards. They no longer care, and no longer pretend to. So, Sullivan can move on to a new gig.
The end of Sullivan’s column comes at a critical moment for the mainstream media, or “the reality-based press,” as Sullivan has dubbed it.
Tells you all you need to know.
Some watchdog she.
A recent Sullivan column:
"Democracy is at stake in the midterms. The media must convey that.
Jan. 6 was our warning. We journalists have find new ways to convey to voters how much is at risk."
She was hardly a down-the-middle voice of impartiality.
WaPo? Stick a fork in it.
Post a Comment