Another place the nightly news might look for inspiration is John Oliver. In depth, accurate, well sourced, thoughtful reporting on incredibly depressing subjects with a clearly articulated progressive bias. And good jokes. He gets 5-6 million views on YouTube, not sure what he gets on cable but I suspect he’s stomping on ABC news ratings.
Your reporting is accurate, your analysis is valuable and your politics are obvious. Ive been getting my news, starting some time ago, from the Daily Show the first clearly progressive outlet to actually report truth. TFN is a direct descendant of that model. You're funny and smart and thoguhtful and snarky and you know there is no room for lies in your reporting. And now I am your Jeff Bezos. except for without the new wife with the amazing breasts and shy a few billion dollars. but I will keep remodeling bathroooms and stuff so i can be amazed by your endless brilliance and thoughtful comentary as well as shedding light on Marco and the rest of the Family. Thanks a ton Jonathan
You read my mind. I was actually writing "Last Week tonight is another great example..." when IO saw you'd beaten me to it. He made his bones on The Daily Show, first as a correspondent, then as the host when Jon Stewart went walkabout, but if you want to talk about somebody taking a story that nobody would dare try on network news, try subprime auto loans and the recycling of the same car multiple times, pulling in payments until the buyer defaults, repossessing the car and lather rinse repeat. Or payday lending. Or any sort of political ephemera you'd never dream people would find compelling. He makes you laugh, but when the show's over, you always feel a little smarter.
I’m so old I remember when the Willowbrook State School story Geraldo Rivera broke in 1972. I was 14 years old, my sister was 11 and my parents sat watching the investigative story with quiet intensity. No one spoke. There were cameras and they filmed the appalling conditions of this school on Staten Island. It was raw and it was brutal and it desperately needed to be told. To me, who watched 60 Minutes faithfully since its inception, this was how news was supposed to be done. Needless to say, I no longer watch the news nor 60 Minutes. It’s very sad and depressing….to come through Vietnam, Watergate and other assorted atrocities in the early 70s, all reported straightforward with lots of facts and details and to hell with who it pissed off and see the “news” today? I might as well take a nap for all I’d learn from the networks.
If it's any consolation, the trusty network news of yore missed a lot of stories they shouldn't have! Probably not much consolation, now that I think of it.
Jonathan, this is a truly thoughtful and thought-provoking piece. What Weiss and her billionaire funders have done to 60 Munutes is a go-straight-to-hell sin. I think way too many on-camera personalities want to be actors/celebrities not true journalists and news reporters. Thanks for doing all you do.
In early 2016 I stopped watching all network news, except for emergency or disaster news. Local news lasted a few more years. It seemed that all network news became trump normalization and legitimization news. It made me sick. Growing up, the 6:00 evening news was on tv everyday. I didn't watch 60 Minutes much, but I did watch 20/20 occasionally. I eventually got sick of cable TV altogether in 2019, canceled my cable except for internet, and never looked back. I was glad to find independent journalism online in recent years, and you last year. Thanks!
Quite reflective. Some time ago it dawned on me that I no longer watch the half-hour news shows. Cutting the cable made it uncomfortable at first but then I remembered that feeling of superficiality. These days I prefer my news in written form (or podcast) so I can read/listen at my leisure, a slower form of absorption. I don't always agree with what I read but I can put it in perspective a lot easier than if it is a smart, good-looking anchor talking away in a tight 30 second burst then cutaway to someone in the field. There is an added bonus of being able to limit how often I see the face of a politico I'd rather not see jabbering away. Less triggering.
If I was a journalist I’d ask you how you feel about the present* iterations of Maddow, Hayes, (MSNBC in general) and Olbermann compared to their first few years of existence on their respective shows. In other words, what the fuck happened? *Present meaning last ten years.
Well you missed every single host being ordered or coached to sound and act like a Rachel clone, from the fake extemporaneous-conversational monologues to the endless facial mugging and constant hand gestures. Then there was the time Joy Reid brought on a “body-language expert” to accuse Bernie Sanders of “turtling,” proving beyond a shadow of a doubt he was a sexist liar unworthy of the Democratic Party nomination. Among other things. Ugh.
It's an interesting paradigm here, because when it was independent ... it was also controlled by rich guys! I just think our society has changed and rich guys can screw TV news without paying a social price.
If any of them had had the gumption to do as you suggest, you would have a proper job with pay, benefits, commuting hell, and workplace associates to form bonding love/hate relationships with. Which means you wouldn't have any of us and we wouldn't have been blessed with any of you. So, careful what you wish for Jonathan. 😉
Besides, it seems to me, TV News programming real reason for existing today isn't to inform and educate any more, that's so passé it's almost prime time boomer! No, this millenium's news is for provoking indignation and outrage while filling the gaps between the corporate proprietors' primary source of income: the sale of advertising - indigestion & heartburn remedies, piles treatment creams, angina medications, alternative therapies, local used car sales lots, ambulance chasers, and dubious loan companies.
In my imagining, if anyone were to suggest a real story with serious questions and answers there'd be "Ooh, that might upset somebody, better see what legal thinks". Legal "Ooh, that will probably cost a shitload, better see what accounting thinks".
Memewhile it's back to MaryJaneBob at the scene asking "How do you feel, Del Amitri?" https://youtu.be/kbpd4_nJoVE
But don't they do so, in their actions of meekly echoing blatant lies and propaganda without question? Insulting whatever intelligence of any remaining audiences they have? Hands up anyone who remembers swearing at or calling "bullshit" during a TV "news" proclamation in the past year.
Broadcast News- top media movie. Some of what you call news might be considered opinion/editorial. Fox does 60-80% opinion. Do you think there is the need for better TV ‘News’ or better quality opinion pieces.
The best news I ever watch about the USA is when I travel overseas. Somehow they just do it better- CNN international, Etc.
I worked in news for 7 years and the breaking news bit is dead on. I was not part of the news org and brought out business team what I thought was an insanely good story (at the time) that no one was reporting on. I learned about it because i was sitting next to an executive at the company on a flight back from a marketing conference- All the former countrywide mortgage execs got together and created penny mac (literally down the street). He attended the conference to figure out how to target households that were getting bailed out. I had his card. First question from business team - who else is reporting on this? Where did I read it? I was floored. Now, I assume this happens all the time.
Love this story, Andrew. Also hate it, of course. I always love to hear from fellow journos. Thanks for reading and weighing in. As for news vs. opinion, I think opinion is intrinsic in news. I should probably address that in a followup piece...
Yes. Please address opinion in a follow up piece. I'm afraid that the opinion makes the news story interesting ( Daily Show, This Week Tonight...) because it provides a focus and drama. See PBS News Hour for in depth snooze in my humble opinion.
I have 2 kids, 27 and 25, fairly politically savvy. They don't watch TV at all. They get all their news from that thing in our hands that is nostalgically still called a phone. As older generations die off TV news will fade out like classic hits radio.
I haven't watched much TV (corporate) news in decades because, as Neil Postman articulated in "Amusing Ourselves to Death" in 1985, TV (corporate) news is just "entertainment." Could it be something much better as Jonathan articulates so well here (and provided examples of it having been at times)? Maybe, but not as long as it is corporate funded and driven, because advertising revenue, not "news," is the the point. "That’s why we got endless To Catch A Predators but not one To Catch A Predatory Lender, let alone To Catch A Deregulatory Predator."
PBS Newshour and DemocracyNow! are other examples of substantive news, but they don't have the resources of corporate outlets. And now the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has been defunded.
"Fox stories demanded we take firm positions on bullshit we hadn’t thought about because we try to be grownups." Whoa now! Most adults do not act like grownups because we live in a culture that promotes infantilizing and makes people want to be entertained (back to Postman) and focused on bullshit. One possible outcome of the Trump administration's cruelty and Republican and Democratic parties' complicities is that it might make more of us demand grownup responsibility as is needed for a functioning democracy. Maybe we'll get The Fucking News Network! Or we'll just "Scroll Ourselves to Death." (With apologies to Mr. Postman, RIP.)
"Some people believe TV news can’t get better because it’s already the best that the best journalists can do. Some cynics think TV news sucks because it’s meant to serve the evil purposes of evil masters."
And too many people can't see the area in between, the sweet spot if you will, where tv news has to consider both the straight skinny on the news and still be commercially viable. networks' newsrooms try hard to be balanced. They have to in order to appeal to a mass audience -- if you want to live in an echo chamber there are plenty of channels on cable.
-----
"TV news is unique in undercutting the on-screen fruits of millions of production dollars by running counter-programming text on the bottom of the same screen"
>>>in my best Andy Rooney voice<<< "Why do they put that chyron on the screen, all it does is block part of the picture? And another thing, why do they have to make it scroll? It's always either too fast or too slow."
-----
Mr Larsen, I think you might have missed another key aspect of why people feel the way they do about tv news: there are so many squawking heads shouting into the news-o-sphere that real journalists are being drowned out, thus the growing number on Substack. I grew up with Walter Cronkite*, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, and IMO I'm not so sure they would have achieved the heights that they did in today's environment. (Anecdotally, I got to meet Mr Huntley when I was young. My family was on a vacay in NYC and we were at 30 Rock when he was leaving the building. I'm proud to say I made him laugh when I walked up to him and said, "goodnight Chet.")
[* Mr Cronkite had an interesting way of looking at the the reporters of his time and now. I often use the first part, leaving off when his tells who he's talking about, but is apropos here in its entirety:
> "I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause – but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it’s a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they’re not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they’re preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can’t be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism."]
“…the problem wasn’t the stories. Going first was.”
There you see if you substitute the word ‘leading’ in place of the word ‘stories’ it becomes clear what the lack of leadership is about.
On a sliding scale from simply civil all the way to quivering cowardly they fill their offices with nothing that isn’t already approved and cleared by someone else. Well, of course, the voters must choose, you say, but amongst whom?
Democracy gives us the what and the how written down in a clear hand. The who might be around here somewhere - timidly waiting to be asked?
Thank you for understanding people can think and feel at the same time. Thank you for providing substantive news and analysis. Thank you for your original investigative reporting!!! I ♥️ independent journalism so much!
tl;dr but curious whether you used the word interactive anywhere in this. 25 years into the interactive era, the media is still stuck in outdated 20th century broadcast mode. the mission now is to convene the audience and lead it to consensus on practical solutions to our common problems. not to have more facts from experts and opinions from panels and talking heads. if you are not actively fostering consensus, you're just adding to the noise. let's meet in The Big Middle, where most Americans are.
then I invite you to convene and come to consensus
meanwhile here's an A.I. summary of your piece:
Larsen argues that the supposed decline of TV news is largely a myth promoted by executives who lack the creativity and journalistic skill to improve it, and he proposes a “Moneyball” approach that would rethink how news is produced and selected. He contends that audiences actually respond to deeper, longer-form reporting and substantive analysis—like 60 Minutes or extended cable monologues—but TV news leaders avoid such work because they don’t know how to create it and prefer safer, formulaic content. ... He argues that TV news could revive itself by empowering intellectually curious teams, focusing on expertise and storytelling rather than celebrity guests or flashy graphics, and choosing stories based on real-world impact instead of superficial conflict. Ultimately, he believes TV news can regain trust and audiences if it abandons its rigid conventions and commits to deeper reporting that explains not just what is happening but why it matters.
Another place the nightly news might look for inspiration is John Oliver. In depth, accurate, well sourced, thoughtful reporting on incredibly depressing subjects with a clearly articulated progressive bias. And good jokes. He gets 5-6 million views on YouTube, not sure what he gets on cable but I suspect he’s stomping on ABC news ratings.
Great model, for sure. Though I have thoughts on making it work in a news context...
Your reporting is accurate, your analysis is valuable and your politics are obvious. Ive been getting my news, starting some time ago, from the Daily Show the first clearly progressive outlet to actually report truth. TFN is a direct descendant of that model. You're funny and smart and thoguhtful and snarky and you know there is no room for lies in your reporting. And now I am your Jeff Bezos. except for without the new wife with the amazing breasts and shy a few billion dollars. but I will keep remodeling bathroooms and stuff so i can be amazed by your endless brilliance and thoughtful comentary as well as shedding light on Marco and the rest of the Family. Thanks a ton Jonathan
Thank you, Tom. I couldn't ask for a better Bezos.
You read my mind. I was actually writing "Last Week tonight is another great example..." when IO saw you'd beaten me to it. He made his bones on The Daily Show, first as a correspondent, then as the host when Jon Stewart went walkabout, but if you want to talk about somebody taking a story that nobody would dare try on network news, try subprime auto loans and the recycling of the same car multiple times, pulling in payments until the buyer defaults, repossessing the car and lather rinse repeat. Or payday lending. Or any sort of political ephemera you'd never dream people would find compelling. He makes you laugh, but when the show's over, you always feel a little smarter.
I’m so old I remember when the Willowbrook State School story Geraldo Rivera broke in 1972. I was 14 years old, my sister was 11 and my parents sat watching the investigative story with quiet intensity. No one spoke. There were cameras and they filmed the appalling conditions of this school on Staten Island. It was raw and it was brutal and it desperately needed to be told. To me, who watched 60 Minutes faithfully since its inception, this was how news was supposed to be done. Needless to say, I no longer watch the news nor 60 Minutes. It’s very sad and depressing….to come through Vietnam, Watergate and other assorted atrocities in the early 70s, all reported straightforward with lots of facts and details and to hell with who it pissed off and see the “news” today? I might as well take a nap for all I’d learn from the networks.
If it's any consolation, the trusty network news of yore missed a lot of stories they shouldn't have! Probably not much consolation, now that I think of it.
Cannot watch even PBS News Hour anymore. Not good for my mental or physical well-being.
I watch Berlin News because it’s not censured. You can find them on their app DW or at 6 pm EDT on PBS.
Jonathan, this is a truly thoughtful and thought-provoking piece. What Weiss and her billionaire funders have done to 60 Munutes is a go-straight-to-hell sin. I think way too many on-camera personalities want to be actors/celebrities not true journalists and news reporters. Thanks for doing all you do.
Thanks, Dawna! I think it'll be interesting to see what more, and how much, she messes with 60. We'll see!
In early 2016 I stopped watching all network news, except for emergency or disaster news. Local news lasted a few more years. It seemed that all network news became trump normalization and legitimization news. It made me sick. Growing up, the 6:00 evening news was on tv everyday. I didn't watch 60 Minutes much, but I did watch 20/20 occasionally. I eventually got sick of cable TV altogether in 2019, canceled my cable except for internet, and never looked back. I was glad to find independent journalism online in recent years, and you last year. Thanks!
Thank you, Kevin.
Quite reflective. Some time ago it dawned on me that I no longer watch the half-hour news shows. Cutting the cable made it uncomfortable at first but then I remembered that feeling of superficiality. These days I prefer my news in written form (or podcast) so I can read/listen at my leisure, a slower form of absorption. I don't always agree with what I read but I can put it in perspective a lot easier than if it is a smart, good-looking anchor talking away in a tight 30 second burst then cutaway to someone in the field. There is an added bonus of being able to limit how often I see the face of a politico I'd rather not see jabbering away. Less triggering.
Thanks, it's always great to learn how people get their news.
If I was a journalist I’d ask you how you feel about the present* iterations of Maddow, Hayes, (MSNBC in general) and Olbermann compared to their first few years of existence on their respective shows. In other words, what the fuck happened? *Present meaning last ten years.
Dirty little secret: I've never been a TV news viewer/listener. Didn't watch MSNBC before I started there, nor since. Not a slight, btw!
Well you missed every single host being ordered or coached to sound and act like a Rachel clone, from the fake extemporaneous-conversational monologues to the endless facial mugging and constant hand gestures. Then there was the time Joy Reid brought on a “body-language expert” to accuse Bernie Sanders of “turtling,” proving beyond a shadow of a doubt he was a sexist liar unworthy of the Democratic Party nomination. Among other things. Ugh.
Well can see what, it’s been a long, downhill slide. Why?
I can suggest a dozen things off the top of my head but we won’t know why until one of them retires on their tell-all book.
Private equity and billionaire owners have ruined the independence of the medium. I’d love to read more on how to bring it back.
It's an interesting paradigm here, because when it was independent ... it was also controlled by rich guys! I just think our society has changed and rich guys can screw TV news without paying a social price.
If any of them had had the gumption to do as you suggest, you would have a proper job with pay, benefits, commuting hell, and workplace associates to form bonding love/hate relationships with. Which means you wouldn't have any of us and we wouldn't have been blessed with any of you. So, careful what you wish for Jonathan. 😉
Besides, it seems to me, TV News programming real reason for existing today isn't to inform and educate any more, that's so passé it's almost prime time boomer! No, this millenium's news is for provoking indignation and outrage while filling the gaps between the corporate proprietors' primary source of income: the sale of advertising - indigestion & heartburn remedies, piles treatment creams, angina medications, alternative therapies, local used car sales lots, ambulance chasers, and dubious loan companies.
In my imagining, if anyone were to suggest a real story with serious questions and answers there'd be "Ooh, that might upset somebody, better see what legal thinks". Legal "Ooh, that will probably cost a shitload, better see what accounting thinks".
Memewhile it's back to MaryJaneBob at the scene asking "How do you feel, Del Amitri?" https://youtu.be/kbpd4_nJoVE
I don't think most TV news producers are trying to provoke indignation or outrage. I think they're doing their best to bring us real news!
But don't they do so, in their actions of meekly echoing blatant lies and propaganda without question? Insulting whatever intelligence of any remaining audiences they have? Hands up anyone who remembers swearing at or calling "bullshit" during a TV "news" proclamation in the past year.
Broadcast News- top media movie. Some of what you call news might be considered opinion/editorial. Fox does 60-80% opinion. Do you think there is the need for better TV ‘News’ or better quality opinion pieces.
The best news I ever watch about the USA is when I travel overseas. Somehow they just do it better- CNN international, Etc.
I worked in news for 7 years and the breaking news bit is dead on. I was not part of the news org and brought out business team what I thought was an insanely good story (at the time) that no one was reporting on. I learned about it because i was sitting next to an executive at the company on a flight back from a marketing conference- All the former countrywide mortgage execs got together and created penny mac (literally down the street). He attended the conference to figure out how to target households that were getting bailed out. I had his card. First question from business team - who else is reporting on this? Where did I read it? I was floored. Now, I assume this happens all the time.
Love this story, Andrew. Also hate it, of course. I always love to hear from fellow journos. Thanks for reading and weighing in. As for news vs. opinion, I think opinion is intrinsic in news. I should probably address that in a followup piece...
Yes. Please address opinion in a follow up piece. I'm afraid that the opinion makes the news story interesting ( Daily Show, This Week Tonight...) because it provides a focus and drama. See PBS News Hour for in depth snooze in my humble opinion.
I have 2 kids, 27 and 25, fairly politically savvy. They don't watch TV at all. They get all their news from that thing in our hands that is nostalgically still called a phone. As older generations die off TV news will fade out like classic hits radio.
I haven't watched much TV (corporate) news in decades because, as Neil Postman articulated in "Amusing Ourselves to Death" in 1985, TV (corporate) news is just "entertainment." Could it be something much better as Jonathan articulates so well here (and provided examples of it having been at times)? Maybe, but not as long as it is corporate funded and driven, because advertising revenue, not "news," is the the point. "That’s why we got endless To Catch A Predators but not one To Catch A Predatory Lender, let alone To Catch A Deregulatory Predator."
PBS Newshour and DemocracyNow! are other examples of substantive news, but they don't have the resources of corporate outlets. And now the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has been defunded.
"Fox stories demanded we take firm positions on bullshit we hadn’t thought about because we try to be grownups." Whoa now! Most adults do not act like grownups because we live in a culture that promotes infantilizing and makes people want to be entertained (back to Postman) and focused on bullshit. One possible outcome of the Trump administration's cruelty and Republican and Democratic parties' complicities is that it might make more of us demand grownup responsibility as is needed for a functioning democracy. Maybe we'll get The Fucking News Network! Or we'll just "Scroll Ourselves to Death." (With apologies to Mr. Postman, RIP.)
"Some people believe TV news can’t get better because it’s already the best that the best journalists can do. Some cynics think TV news sucks because it’s meant to serve the evil purposes of evil masters."
And too many people can't see the area in between, the sweet spot if you will, where tv news has to consider both the straight skinny on the news and still be commercially viable. networks' newsrooms try hard to be balanced. They have to in order to appeal to a mass audience -- if you want to live in an echo chamber there are plenty of channels on cable.
-----
"TV news is unique in undercutting the on-screen fruits of millions of production dollars by running counter-programming text on the bottom of the same screen"
>>>in my best Andy Rooney voice<<< "Why do they put that chyron on the screen, all it does is block part of the picture? And another thing, why do they have to make it scroll? It's always either too fast or too slow."
-----
Mr Larsen, I think you might have missed another key aspect of why people feel the way they do about tv news: there are so many squawking heads shouting into the news-o-sphere that real journalists are being drowned out, thus the growing number on Substack. I grew up with Walter Cronkite*, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, and IMO I'm not so sure they would have achieved the heights that they did in today's environment. (Anecdotally, I got to meet Mr Huntley when I was young. My family was on a vacay in NYC and we were at 30 Rock when he was leaving the building. I'm proud to say I made him laugh when I walked up to him and said, "goodnight Chet.")
[* Mr Cronkite had an interesting way of looking at the the reporters of his time and now. I often use the first part, leaving off when his tells who he's talking about, but is apropos here in its entirety:
> "I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause – but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it’s a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they’re not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they’re preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can’t be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism."]
fnord
Never heard that before. Thanks!
“…the problem wasn’t the stories. Going first was.”
There you see if you substitute the word ‘leading’ in place of the word ‘stories’ it becomes clear what the lack of leadership is about.
On a sliding scale from simply civil all the way to quivering cowardly they fill their offices with nothing that isn’t already approved and cleared by someone else. Well, of course, the voters must choose, you say, but amongst whom?
Democracy gives us the what and the how written down in a clear hand. The who might be around here somewhere - timidly waiting to be asked?
Thank you for understanding people can think and feel at the same time. Thank you for providing substantive news and analysis. Thank you for your original investigative reporting!!! I ♥️ independent journalism so much!
tl;dr but curious whether you used the word interactive anywhere in this. 25 years into the interactive era, the media is still stuck in outdated 20th century broadcast mode. the mission now is to convene the audience and lead it to consensus on practical solutions to our common problems. not to have more facts from experts and opinions from panels and talking heads. if you are not actively fostering consensus, you're just adding to the noise. let's meet in The Big Middle, where most Americans are.
Agree and disagree. Thank you!
then I invite you to convene and come to consensus
meanwhile here's an A.I. summary of your piece:
Larsen argues that the supposed decline of TV news is largely a myth promoted by executives who lack the creativity and journalistic skill to improve it, and he proposes a “Moneyball” approach that would rethink how news is produced and selected. He contends that audiences actually respond to deeper, longer-form reporting and substantive analysis—like 60 Minutes or extended cable monologues—but TV news leaders avoid such work because they don’t know how to create it and prefer safer, formulaic content. ... He argues that TV news could revive itself by empowering intellectually curious teams, focusing on expertise and storytelling rather than celebrity guests or flashy graphics, and choosing stories based on real-world impact instead of superficial conflict. Ultimately, he believes TV news can regain trust and audiences if it abandons its rigid conventions and commits to deeper reporting that explains not just what is happening but why it matters.
Thanks for this piece, Jonathan. Have you speed listened to the last three WNYC On the Media poscasts?
- Feb 20: The Man With a Plan to Reshape Broadcast TV
- Feb 25: The Century-Long Capture of U.S. Media
- Feb 27: The Ellisons Prepare to Expand Their Media Empire
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm
No!