The President Doesn't Read
Why I trust newspapers over television news
A gaggle of reporters lined the back row of a recent county commissioners’ meeting. On the agenda: ending a contract to provide local resources for detaining and transporting immigrants apprehended by federal agents. I was there to hear community comments and to show my support for ending the contracts. I also attended as a witness for others in my resistance group who could not attend. It occurred to me that the press was there to bear witness as well.
As I’ve written about the rise of authoritarianism for Corridor Rabbit, I often cite newspaper reporting. I count on press organizations to send correspondents to cover important events—bearing witness to what goes on and then reporting to the world.
I’ve curated a list of mastheads that I generally trust. It is important to understand that reputable news organizations have strict standards and practices for vetting stories and reporting the news. They have legal departments that often have to sign off on controversial stories. Not every press organization gets it right all the time, but the mastheads that have built an enduring legacy certainly try.
Recently, I’ve grown more skeptical of television news. The cable news channels compete on the force of their anchors’ personalities, and the news has become indistinguishably blended with opinion. The networks—especially ABC and CBS—have settled high-value frivolous lawsuits with the president, and as a result, I believe it has had a chilling effect on their editorial choices, and they pull punches when critical inquiry is warranted.
Newspapers seem less impacted by the chilling effects of the president’s lawsuits, in large part, I believe, because the president famously hates to read. What gets reported in print is largely invisible to him—unless it is reported separately by a television news outlet. As a result, newspapers have become my primary source for trusted reporting.
Reporting isn’t cheap. It takes a lot of resources to send correspondents to witness important events and to investigate significant stories. That’s why I’m glad to pay a subscription fee for the newspapers I value the most—particularly, The New York Times, The Guardian, and reluctantly (because of Jeff Bezos), The Washington Post. I also think that everyone who wants to remain civically engaged should support their local paper with a paid subscription.
Supporting a free and independent press with paid subscriptions is an important act of resistance. Corridor Rabbit, on the other hand, will always be free. All I ask is that you share it with a like-minded friend. : )
Liking, sharing, or commenting on this post IS an act of resistance. Corridor Rabbit is meant to serve as a casual guide for how to start and grow an informal resistance group. It is not authoritative; it is a live journal documenting our efforts. It is a call to action. It's an invitation to connect and share what you are doing to resist authoritarianism. Read more about the goals of Corridor Rabbit. We design our illustrations with the help of AI.
As a former newspaper guy, I salute you. Newspapers, all flaws considered, remain the best and most trusted purveyors and explainers of what's going on around us. More and more I find myself reading the foreign newspapers on my subscription list, especially the Guardian, just to get some need whimsy and perspective.
I highly suggest the Ground News App. It’s worth it just for the Blindspot tab alone. It tells you what stories are being severely underreported by left and right leaning sources.