Did Politics Destroy Journalism, or Was It the Other Way Around?

Investigative journalist Peter Schweitzer, who hosts the podcast Drill Down, explores the relationship between politics and journalism. He suggests that journalism may have damaged itself more than politics could.

Schweitzer shares an insight from a former producer of 60 Minutes, who commented on how journalists seem increasingly uninterested in actual events, particularly when it comes to hard news. His recent guest on the podcast, Mark Halperin, a veteran in political journalism, concurs with this view.

Halperin, who has held significant roles at outlets like ABC News and authored influential books on presidential elections, critiques what he perceives as a partisanship in media that alienates large segments of the audience. He notes that major newspapers like the New York Times are seeing some growth, albeit with questionable strategies like introducing daily puzzles, which he jokingly remarks isn’t helping their political coverage.

He identifies three main issues with how the media handled President Trump, asserting that instead of addressing these problems, they doubled down on them. To begin with, there’s a liberal bias intensified by Trump’s presidency, leading to a lack of attention toward conservative perspectives on economic and cultural matters. Halperin recalls how, during his time at ABC, there was a failure to reach out to a significant part of the audience.

Secondly, he points out that the media ignored the digital revolution and underestimated how it would change their business model. Historically, major networks felt secure in their monopoly and were slow to adapt.

Lastly, Halperin remarks on a pervasive elite bubble within the media, where the belief in the wisdom coming from Washington and New York clouds their understanding of broader national issues. He mentions that he was one of the few reporters predicting Trump’s success in 2016, having attended rallies and listened to concerns that were largely overlooked by establishments.

Instead of reaching out to middle America, Halperin criticizes the media’s reaction to Trump as an effort to reinforce existing biases.

Schweitzer challenges the notion of news organizations striving to appear nonpartisan. He recalls his graduate studies in England, where media outlets were openly categorized by their political leanings. He reflects on his belief that reading various newspapers would provide a comprehensive viewpoint.

“The idea of unbiased media seems to be fading into obscurity,” Schweitzer asserts.

Halperin expresses pride in his ability to keep his political beliefs private, citing how even close friends are often uncertain about his stance. He recognizes the rise of smaller media platforms, highlighting successes like Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson in capturing substantial audiences. However, he insists that large media outlets still play a crucial role, especially in covering major stories effectively.

Asked about the current interest in serious news coverage, Halperin feels that while older generations maintain their interest, younger audiences seem less engaged. He believes it’s vital to present compelling stories in a way that appeals to younger viewers without sacrificing journalistic integrity.

Co-host Eric Eggers also commented on media practices, noting a claim by Stephen Colbert that CBS executives blocked an interview with a Democratic Senate candidate due to FCC regulations. CBS has denied this allegation.

Halperin points out the outdated nature of the FCC’s regulations, suggesting that the media landscape has changed significantly and that networks like CBS need to adapt. He argues there’s no need for Colbert to secure interviews if he feels they aren’t right for his show.

In conclusion, the conversation raises questions about media’s evolving role and its relationship with political narratives, highlighting the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.