Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, Senior Elections correspondent at the
Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for Knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com, follow us on x at FDRLST,
make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and
course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Michael Walsh, whose new book Against
the Corporate Media Forty two Ways the Press Hates You
It's coming out, in fact, it is out and everywhere
right now, presents a collection of more than forty essays
on the decline and fall of the America and international
news media. The book's list of distinguished contributors includes folks
like Lance Morrow, John Olsullivan, Monica Crowley, Charlie Kirk, Glenn Reynolds,
and many more. We're going to delve into all of
that coming up momentarily, but first let us welcome into
this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour Michael Walsh. Good day, sir,
Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me on that. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: I want to get fully into the book, and we
will do that, but we must begin where the media
has been playing a major role in some horrific events
in this country of late, and I begin with the
latest sad to say, the latest assassination attempt against former
President Donald Trump is obviously the GOP's presidential candidate. The media,
the corporate media, the accomplice media, as I like to
call them, really went beyond the pale this weekend, and
certainly its initial coverage of what the FBI and others
are calling an assassination attempt against the former president. It
was your initial thoughts on the coverage and what we
saw from some of the major players.
Speaker 2: Well, it's interesting. I'm here in Central Europe at the moment.
So I first sat on Twitter x last night as
I was having dinner, and at that point they had
already dismissed it as so as unbelievable as this makes
up two guys having a gunfight on the golf course
in West Palm Beach in where as you know, everybody
walks around armed all whole lot.
Speaker 1: Yes to the hell yeah.
Speaker 2: So I went to bed thinking, well, that's weird that
you know, it is twenty twenty four and then I
woke up to the news that it was actually oops,
yet another assassination attempt. Bye, yet another one of the
usual suspects for yet again the same reason and driven
to do what he did by the same people, the
mainstream media. So it's a perfect tie to what we're
talking about today, Federalists.
Speaker 1: You know, we've written a number of stories on that,
and obviously we're going to take a look as well
at the way the media has covered this. I think
what one of the more remarkable stories in Lester Holt
is not alone, but the anchor man for NBC News
was quick to blame Donald Trump for having someone try
to it appears to take his life, just as we've
seen if they weren't, if they haven't memory hold the
Butler Pennsylvania assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump on
July thirteenth of this year. And I will ask you this,
do you think they will memory hold this again? Because
it doesn't help Kamala Harris and Tim Walls in their
election pursuit their campaign pursuit. And also it is just
absolutely amazing. What do you think about these corporate actors
talking about Donald Trump means needs to turn down the heat. Well,
seventy eight year old man really should wear short skirts
like that out public. It's just that provocative thing that
he does. But then again, he provokes them simply by existing.
So I heard real.
Speaker 2: Statement on MSNBC thanks to the miracle of Elon Musk
and X, where you can actually learn things that aren't
covered up and smothered with a pillow. As my friend
Dave Birch once said about the function of the media,
I did hear him say that it was in effect
Trump's fault for ratcheting up the rhetoric. And also there
is this bogus context device that journalists hughes. The New
York Times started it. We used to joke about it,
saying that such and such an event quote comes at
a time when and then you drag in something completely
extraneous to the event, just so you can make your
larger narrative point. So that's effectively what Holt was doing today, saying,
and this news comes at a time when and then
we start blaming the republic. The media is wholly in
the tank in a way that it wasn't even when
we started this book a year and a half ago.
You know, these books don't just happen overnight. And in
this case, I had to commission forty other writers and
assign them the topic and negotiate and get them done
and edit them and put them in some kind of order.
It's a large project, so it takes some time. But
we were guessing that right around the election, the media
would disgrace itself. We just had no idea how badly
they would disgrace themselves.
Speaker 1: Oh, we get a new level, a lower level every day,
every time you think that they can see And I
guess that's the question too. Two questions as we focus
on your extraordinary new book into this and it is
a deep dive with a lot of folks who have
a lot of experience on this front, I guess the
question is how did we get here? And the other
related question is do we hate corporate media enough? Well?
Speaker 2: And he asked the sacd question is you think you can,
but you haven't plumbed the depth yet. How much you
can load these people? How we got here is is
really simple, Donald Trump, That's how we got here. They've
been wanting to get here for a long time. But
there's a notorious essay in the New York Times back
during the first Trump campaign by a man named Jim
Ruttenberg who said, basically, the Trump's not a normal candidate.
He will not be extended the courtesy of being treated
respectfully or with fairness or even handedness, because that's a lie,
and we will cover him antagonistically. And from that moment on,
as you've seen by just by watching Morning Joe or
reading Twitter or any of the outlets of the corporate media,
you've seen reporters who I thought, in fact somewhat reporters
I'd worked with, saying this are the unthinkable, which is
that there are there is not two sides, that there
are not two sides to this story. Trump is not
a normal candidate and he should be extended no courtesies
at all, despite the fact of his status as a
former president of the United States, despite the fact of
his status as as the leading now the Republican candidate
and perhaps ahead in the polls, that Trump would be
absolutely anathema to them, and you still see it. I
still read men whom I worked with at Time magazine
back in the last glory days of Time, when it
was the best magazine in the world. I've seen guys
that I've known for a long time, explicitly come out
and say the gloves are off. It is, in fact
a sin against journalism and democracy for you to give
this man any courtesy whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Man here, we are here, we are Yeah. And isn't
it amazing? That's how the US Secret Service offers protection
to the former president as well. How often have we
heard over the last couple of months in this country.
You know, he's not the sitting president, so he doesn't
deserve the kind of protection which is just ludicrous. But
back back to your point and back to the book.
You know, I remember I joke, but I don't think
it's really a joke.
Speaker 2: I talk about.
Speaker 1: Journalists today, coming from the Aaron Sorkin School of journalism.
I bring this up because there was a show called.
Speaker 2: The news Room.
Speaker 1: It was about the hard hitting TV news room. It was,
you know, a kind of a I don't know if
they were trying to portray themselves as a Fox, you know,
sort of network. But you had in Jeff Daniels who
played the main character. You know, he was the main anchor,
and he was the Republican's pal. And then he had
an epiphany in his road to Damascus moment where he said,
you know what, just because somebody says that we don't
have to cover them, just simply because they have a
different point of view. That was the whole idea of
this show. And it really was presented as the leftist
Aaron Sorkin, you might suspect, presented as this is the
way we ought to do journalism. That was a fictional show.
But those are the lessons Michael, that it seems to
me that were applied to American journalism more than a
decade ago.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's true. It's Aaron Sorkin is an extremely skilled writer.
It's one of the best in Hollywood, and that makes
him extremely effective. So it's funny that one can joke
to him that he wrote one of the most conservative
movies ever made, a Few Good Men. But it will
be a shock to find that everybody thinks of Jack
Nicholson as the hero of that movie and not Todd Truce.
So sometimes the left doesn't understand the message they're actually selling.
But in this case, Sorkin with selling this notion of
activist journalism. Now, this goes back to when I started
in journalism, which was nineteen seventy two, and back then,
if you wanted to change the world. You became either
a lawyer or a journalist. Now most journalists starts smart
enough to be lawyers. And I'm not saying lawyers are
smarter or anything, trust me, but that's how far down
the wrong they were. But they were motivated by this
desire to do good. But in this case it's the
sixties generation and it's my boomer generation's definition of doing good,
which means being an activist for social causes. And if
you'll recall that the watchword, the phrase at that time,
which is still very much in effect, is by any
means necessary. That's a Spike Lee. He uses that in
his movies. It is very characteristic of guys who grew
up during the sixties who were against the Vietnam War
or the draft or whatever. The cause through sure was
by any means necessary. And the problem with conservatives is
we don't believe it when they say it. We don't
believe it, but they do mean it, and by any
means necessary means exactly what it says, so they will
kill in the pursuit of their objective. And now you've
seen it twice.
Speaker 1: You know, it's interesting that you talk about when you
got your start in journalism in nineteen seventy two. I'm
going to date myself here. I've been around the block
for a few years. I was born in the summer
of Watergate, nineteen seventy two. And I'm curious what you
think about this, because I believe that there was a time,
you know, and journalism in America has always tended lefters,
long tended left, but there was a professional honesty in it,
you know, and it's hard to believe in modern day journalism,
but there was an honesty to it in that if
you know, whoever was was behaving badly, whoever was corrupt,
those are the politicians you went after, the policymakers or whatever.
And it didn't matter. We saw a lot of great
journalism about bad democrats in Chicago over the years. But
I really do believe that a switch, something changed fundamentally
in journalism with all the President's men. I mean, the
coverage of Watergate at that time kind of set the
template for, you know, the one sided kind of journalism
that we have seen, the narrative forming, crusading journalism that
we have seen in this country that I think fundamentally
changed at that point. Where does it go.
Speaker 2: Back farther well, I think that's right in a way.
I don't think Carl Burstein is a friend of mine,
and simply because we're of the same age. Basically, when
I was a young reporter that summer watching him, I
didn't know him at the time. And Woodward breaks story
after story after story, and they were really a role
model for a lot of us who realized that the
or certainly believed that the goal of this job was
to break stories, was to unearth information that somebody didn't
want published, under the guidance of more experienced elder journalistic
Hans Now in retrospect, and we have an essay by
Monica Crowley in against the corporate media called Nixon and
the weaponization of media hatred. They all hated Nixon, and
people young people today are astounded to discover that Nixon
in nineteen seventy two had just won the biggest landslide
in American political history, basically one of two or three.
He swept forty nine states, and less than two years
later he was gone, just gone, baby gone. That really
was the beginning of the oh my, we can even
take down a enormously popularly elected president. And I don't
think that Carl or Bob meant to do that, but
I think a lot of people learned the wrong lessons
from what in fact did happen, and so now today,
by any means necessary, them is the rules. Baby, we have.
Speaker 3: A huge hole in our nation's roof.
Speaker 4: The watch Dout on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski
every day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and
the economy and how it affects your wallet.
Speaker 3: There should be only one priority for our lawmakers. America
is spending three billion dollars a day in paying off
our own interests. You only need to be voting for
candidates who can address this problem. Whether it's happening in
DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 2: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I agree. I think that became the ten
for what has also happened. And I'm curious if the
book deals with this. The Jim Acostas of the world,
and he's not alone, but he's one of the more
egregious examples where you have the journalists and I'm not
saying Woodward and Bernstein did this. I think you're right.
I think they were onto a you know, a story
that had, you know, great historical significance. I think they
understood that at the time. But I see, you know,
the modern day journalist and Jim Acosta goes back a
while where they're infusing themselves into the story. They're becoming
the story. And that's different in the main in American journalism,
is it not?
Speaker 2: Yes, it is. There was always a stricture against becoming
a celebrity journalist. Journalists were not supposed to be well known.
In fact, when I went to Time, byelines had just
begun to be given to the writers at Time magazine.
You went to Time, and by the way, you didn't
ask to go to Time. Time asked you to go
to Time. But you also accepted the notion that I
worked in the back of the book, and I was
a critic, so I did get a byline, but it
was a little tiny byline at the bottom of your story,
and it could be withheld if they wished to. But
most of the other writers didn't even get that, and
that was fine with us. We didn't need to see
our faces on television. I'm still quite averse to it. Frankly,
we didn't need the glory. We were being paid well,
and we had a great job, and we worked for
a great institution, and that's all that mattered. The gem
Acostas of the world, the TV airheads, they've always been
a problem. I mean, there was everyone knew Walter Cronkite,
but he wasn't an airhead. He was sort of a vuncular,
a veteran of World War Two journalism, a man with
a sterling resume, and the other anchors at that time
were similarly situated. Now they've become basically celebrities in their
own weird sort of way. No one takes their opinions
particularly seriously, but they enjoy the notoriety. And I don't
mean the fame. I mean the notoriety that comes with
being objects of derision, which they are. But they don't care.
They're making a fortune. So who's got the last laugh
at this point? That's the question. I suppose. Our guest
today is Michael Walsh, whose new book very compelling against
the corporate media, forty two Waves The Press Hates You.
You can find it just about everywhere. Now again, the
book presents a colle election of more than forty essays
on the decline and fall of the American and international
news media. Speaking of which, here's something that is anybody
following the headlines over the last four years in this country,
and really over the last eight years in this country
eight plus years now, we're seeing news as psychological operation.
I believe the book delves into that topic as well.
But it is an amazing turn of events what we've
seen through COVID, what we have seen through the election
of twenty twenty, where we have journalists who are on
board against the First Amendment. I mean, these are remarkable days, Michael,
they are they're palling days two. But what has happened
is that journalists have become now drawn from the same
social class as the people they covered. And this is
a very very important change. I think there were several
important changes. One is a male dominated profession became feminized.
And two it became an upper middle class to lower
upper class profession and not the street kids who were
the editors when I first started. So these are enormous,
These are enormously important changes. The journalists today, the ones
who make it as far as Washington and now they
all want to start in Washington, Uh. They went to
the same schools. They've married the same people, They've swapped
spouses with the same people. They have summer houses in
the same neighborhoods, either in Long Island or in Behoveth
or in upstate in the Berkshires, which happened to be
where I live. They all know each other. We go
back fifty There's still plenty of guys I work with
fifty two years ago who are still in the business
because baby boomers never die. As you can see, we
just keep staggering on forever because we have old soldiers.
So that's one change. And the fact also that it's
been feminized, I think has a tremendous impact. We have
an essay about that by Priscilla Turner in this book
about how women change journalism, and it changed from that
rude street wise up yours. I'm getting the story, even
if it means I have to break the law a
little bit to do it, if I have to steal
the photograph off that person's desk, or if I have
to rummage in the garbage. You can go back to
the nineteen thirties set and see the great journalism movies,
one of which start. Each don I died with James
is reported and get sent to jail. The journalists would
do anything to get the story and they'd be defended.
But that was when they were males, and now females
find that a little bit icky. It's beneath them. They're
more concerned with consensus and groupthink than men are. I
think that's a fair statement. And what we see from
the feminization of journalism is this, everyone has to play nice,
and if you don't, you will go sit in the
corner for the rest of your life and those peace
will get cold. You know how dominating your mom or
if you're like me you grew up with the nuns
can be. And so we've got this sort of type
now in journalism who really feels that they're right and
they're going to force these piece down your throat of
what's the last thing they do. So these are two
of the things that have changed. And the social pressure
cannot be underestimated. They don't want to make their friends
look bad. It would be the old days, journalist, you'd
be friends, but you cut the other guy's throat on
that morning newspaper. You were in the afternoon newspaper because
you had to have that story first. And I found
myself in that position when I went to San Francisco
to report a big story with not in the cosmic
scheme of things, but locally, and I'd be damned if
I was not going to get it before the other guy.
Oh yeah, that's how you thought. But now it really
doesn't matter because eventually everyone gets to the same place,
and so journalism has been in a way castrated, and
I don't think that's been helpful for the country.
Speaker 1: You talk about it. I think that's interesting. Everybody gets
to the same place, But what about getting to the
same narrative where you see the same talking points that
are basically regurgitated from the White House from you know,
from the spokes Well, they all go to you know,
I'm sorry, go ahead, no, no, I did. I'm just curious.
I mean, how did we we get to this point
where the talking points of the White House are the
stories of the day.
Speaker 2: Well, there's also an essay in the book by John
O'sump about the revolving door between government and journalism. It
used to be that if you were a journalist and
you went into the government, you never went back to journalism.
If you were a journalist and you went into pr
you would never be able to go back to journalism
because you had compromised your inteke, literally compromised your integrity.
That's not true now. So now you see journalists going
in and out of the White House depending on which
party is in power, and while they're out of power,
they get stored away at some think think tank or
on the New York Times or I remember going to
a party once for a friend of mine, a liberal journalist,
and was filled with people from the New York Times,
including Art Sealzburg, and they were all joking how they
were just sort of waiting, you know, for the next
Democrat administration to come back and then then go back
to Washington again and work in the White House. Wow.
So that's that's the way the game is played now.
And as a result, consensus. It gets back to my
critique of the feminization process too. Consensus is much much
more important than breaking stories. It's just you don't want
to be the skunk at the garden party, and especially
when you work with and in many cases are married to,
people in the administration.
Speaker 1: Indeed, but I just keep thinking about you know, I
guess it harkens back, and you get enough older journalism,
older journalists in the room, and you get stories of
back in my day kind of thing. And obviously you
and I both know that journalism is it ain't going
back to what we used to know it to be. Fourth,
the state used to be respected. The polling numbers show
and you don't need polling numbers, or as Dylan once said,
you don't need a weatherman to know which way the
wind blows. Journalism is not the respected discipline that it
once was. And you pointed out in the book, and
we've discussed.
Speaker 2: Why that is.
Speaker 1: When you have a debate like we saw between Donald
Trump and Kamala Harris, the two ABC moderators doing what
they did. There was a time and again sounding like
the old guy journalist, but there was a time in
American journalism where that kind of performance would get you
in the unemployment line. Now it gets you rewarded in
the eyes of your colleagues.
Speaker 2: Yes, well, that's the bubble effect. The only people they
meet are in that bubble. And what we found, I've
short these experiences socially after all all the years that
I was in that profession, and I'm really not in
it any longer, but you lose friends, you stop getting
invited to people's houses. That it has sorted itself out
and kind of self segregated. Now the leftist worldview is dominant,
so that means a little fewer opportunities for those of
us who are on the conservative side. But we now
have to live with that because we no longer have
the same goals in mind. And I think that's really
a sad thing. But let me just say one thing
about youuralism. It used to be disreputable and that was
the fun of it. We have an opening essay against
the corporate media by Lance Morrow, by dear friend who
was at Time magazine for many, many years, I think
may have written the most cover stories in the history
of Time, distinguished American essays, and he talks about the
good old days when journalism was slightly disreputable. It was raffish.
As I said, you prize yourself on cutting a little
corner here and there, sweet talking somebody, whatever seductive means
you needed to use to get the story you used.
And then it became corporate, and it became an establishment profession.
And it never used to be a profession. It was
a trade. They now talk about themselves as professionals, as
if they were doctors or lawyers or had to pass
some kind of standards or be state ratified to do it.
You don't want that in the first place. But secondly,
they never were that. There were always tradespeople. They came
from the tradesman class. They tended to be Ethnics from
the last great wave of immigration, Irish Italians, Jews. And
you saw their bylines in all the newspapers, all the columnists,
you know, famous Irish American columnists for example, or the
great Jewish reporters on the New York Times like Meerberger
or Abe Rosenthal for that matter. You saw this, And
now you see it's become much more diverse in a
bad sort of way. That is to say, it has
split apart in terms of its appeal to the broad
swath of the country. And you get this consensus journalism now,
which is what everybody seems to want, but the public
doesn't want it, and the public is rejects it constantly,
and yet they really don't have very many alternatives, do.
Speaker 1: They They don't, And that's the problem. As diffuse as
everything has become in modern day journalism, the song or
story remains the same. And a big part of that
story that we've seen over the last couple of decades,
particular in this country, is the going away from what
used to be the core of value of journalism, of
reporting you had to be right. That was prized above
everything else, prized above being first, prized, being above having
the most clicks, prized above everything that involves reporting and journalism.
How is it that? And we've seen this, particularly over
the last four plus years in this country. How can
this industry be so wrong all the time and still
Americans are turning to it. I mean, they wouldn't exist
if Americans didn't go away.
Speaker 2: Well. Michael Crichton once referred to this as the gel
iphen Man effect, which is that when you're a reader
or watch television or however you're getting your news and
a story comes up with which you've been directly involved,
or it's your profession, or you really are an expert,
and you realize the story of self complete crap, and
then you move on to the rest of the publication
and you believe every word of it, so because you
actually know what you're talking about with one of them,
and you assume somehow that the rest of the story
is the rest of the newspaper is more right than
the thing you just read about what goes on down
with the plant where you were. That's been part of
the problem. Americans have no real elsewhere to turn. We
do have alternate media. I was with Andrew Breitbart when
we started the Breitbart big sites back in twenty ten,
and they had a huge electrifying effect at the time.
But the corporate media has survived. Even though the newspapers
out of business and the TV networks keep getting replaced
by cable and now by streaming and by whatever technological
advancement comes up. It's still dominated by the New York Times.
There are two essays in the book about the New
York Times and the Sins of the New York Times,
by two men, Ashley Rinsberg and Jay Peters Zain. Now
I should mention that on Thursday we launched this book
officially in London at the Reform Club, so we had
kind of a very high end cross section of London society,
including famous British politicians there, famous British journalists there. It
was quite quite well attended. So there is an interest
in and hunger for some kind of at least return
to the however elusive standard of objects activity that we've
now forsaken.
Speaker 4: It.
Speaker 2: But Walter Lippman has actually won this argument. He wrote
a book in nineteen twenty nine in which he argued
that the media's opinions called public opinion, that's the name book.
The media's opinion should be formed for it by experts
and government people so that everyone is on the same page.
In a way, he was an early activist against quote
misinformation and disinformation, and he was ignored after the Second
World War when you had all these hustling street kids
go into journalism. But in a way he's won. And
that's I think rather sad because I was talking about
this with a friend of mine the other day, having
been a Cold War correspondent, a veteran. The word disinformation
is actually from the KGB. It's a Russian term for
deliberately false information injected into the body politic via state media. Exactly.
So when it's funny that when Nina Jankowitz or whichever
monster is now advocating for basically censorship advocates for it,
they're advocating for the Soviet position. Let's be very clear
about that, because that's who these people are. They really
are people for whom the loss of the Soviet Union
was a great blow to them personally, because it destroyed
their fantasy about the way the world works and the
way that the art of the universe bends towards justice
and other bologna that you hear them constantly saying. But
now that they have another chance to do it through
the European Union, which is effectively the old USSR, but
in Western Europe now instead of in the East, they're
going to, by God, give it their all. And you
will see journalists now literally arguing against freedom of speech
and against the First Amendment. I was in London leading
these two panels on the subject, quoting to the British
John Milton and two of the British writers of the
eighteenth century who wrote under the name Cato, and these
essays are the foundation of the American First Amendment. Yes,
and when Cato says, a man who cannot call his
tongue his zone can call nothing his own. This is
the key to the importance of freedom of speech, and
yet it is being abandoned in the pursuit of what
I call in our books opening essay a higher loyalty.
Just this, James Comey said he had a higher loyalty
than the actual law of the United States of America.
Journalists have a higher loyalty beyond the First Amendment. And
that is where they get very dangerous.
Speaker 1: That is sad, horrifying, and yes, extremely dangerous. Because it's
one thing when James Comey says it. It's bad enough.
It's one thing when the Department, the Department of Homeland
Security says it. But when journalists, the people who are
making their bread and butter first and foremost off of
the First Amendment, and there is the hypocritical oath, not
the hippocratic oath. Of course, it seems in modern day
journalism a lot. But you know, that whole idea of defender,
actual defender of the first order of business in the
amendments to this Constitution, the First Amendment. You know, that
is something that reporters took pride in and I don't
know what's going on in their minds to day, but
it is not that. And so that leads us to
our final question. It's all very Orwellian what we've experienced
over the last several years in this country. Where do
we go from here?
Speaker 2: I think nowhere good. I don't have a happy ending
to this. I think that the newspaper industry will die
and the New York Times will be the only surviving newspaper.
It's it's like that Sylvester Stallone movie set in the
future where all restaurants have mercha. They're now all Taco
bell So I think it was called Resurrection Man or
something like man. I believe it was, no, I forgot,
but anyway it was. It was quite quite quite a
good futuristic science fiction movie. The Times will go on,
the TV networks will die, which is fun, But then
you'll just have a kind of atomized body politic that
goes and looks for whatever source seems to speak to
its needs. So Alex Jones will have fans forever, doesn't
matter how crazy he is. He'll have fans. On the left.
Keith Olberman, God help us, will have fans no matter
how crazy he is. And then you have a country
with no center. And this is actually what the left wants.
They've never been comfortable with the idea of a strong
independent United States in America. They think it needs to
be conformist, it needs to be forced to be nice,
it needs to force to conform, and they'll get their wish,
but the people will be lost. The one thing I
did argue with Breitbart about quite a bit when we
started was he believed that anyone could be a journalist.
I did not, and I believed that certain rules and
strictures and practices were important in order to make that story.
As we were saying earlier, right, get it first or
get it right. Well, that's the balance you have to find,
and everyone had to find it his own way. It
gave it a kind of electricity to the job, which
made it fun and every day it started over again.
And now, of course it goes twenty four to seven
every second of the day, But that was the balance
that you had to do. Now it won't matter. Eventually
everyone will know the news thanks to I think Twitter.
Twitter will be the source of it. It'll be like
the AP minus the awful Apally it will be the source.
But whether it's right or not, we have no way
of knowing, and so we'll be lost in this fog
of multiple sources. You know, it is that a old
song that one hundred and seventy two channels and that's
not that's Thrue Springsteen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, where we're going. That's exactly exactly right. You see
it every day, and of course there are many, many
more channels than Springsteen originally wrote that song. I believe
in the nineteen eighties, it's scary stuff. And as someone
who has you know, lived in the bridging the gap
between the old journalism, so to speak, in the new,
especially with the dawn of digital journalism, it is a
brave new world that is in many ways a cowardly,
sniveling new world. This is a fascinating book, and again
I go back to a point that we raised earlier
in this conversation. If you think you hate corporate media enough,
try harder. Thanks to my guest today Michael Walsh, whose
new book against the Corporate Media, Forty two Ways the
Press Hates You is everywhere and it covers just about everything.
Thanks so much for joining us today, my friend.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Matt.
Speaker 1: You bet you've been listening to another edition of The
Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior correspondent at the Federalist.
We'll be back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers
of freedom and anxious for the Fray.