I think this is why the "cancel culture" moral panic gets under my skin so much. *So* many of Americans' false unof people and events come from the fact that the media was traditionally run by a tiny number of gatekeepers.

‘Breitbart died, like all of us will, in darkness. But as a media persona he chose to also live there, and in the process has impelled countless others to throttle themselves into the abyss.’

“The thing I really want to impress on my students is that the commercial case for news only matters if the profits are used to subsidize reporting the public can see, and that civic virtue may be heart-warming, but it won’t keep the lights on, if the lights cost more than cash on hand. Both sides of the equation have to be solved.”

This is pretty traditionalist but she's pretty right.

The always-great Matt Thompson on why episodic news content isn't as helpful as laying a contextual groundwork for a story and then letting readers know about events that happen in that framework.

"Everyone knows that Google is killing the news business. Few people know how hard Google is trying to bring it back to life, or why the company now considers journalism’s survival crucial to its own prospects."

Why the reaction to the iPhone leak reflects a much-weakened press and an Apple in bed with the authorities.

Basically: Publishing solves a problem that no longer exists, and we don't need newspapers; we need journalism. Amen.

"America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world." A cautious but firm and thoughtful endorsement from an excellent publication.

The sad dumbing-down of one of the most visited and trusted news sources in the country.

"The reaction was to the idea of the ban, not the effects of it. There was some internal hand-wringing. Some felt we were tinkering dangerously with the news. Whom would we ban next? Others loved the idea."