So here's a dumb question, Adam (and a sincere one; I hope this doesn't come off as rhetorical). If no one reads legacy media editorials, why do they hold so much sway with law makers? Is it just some kind of vicious feedback loop of people toadying the leaders they follow in the name of "access?"
Matt Taibbi has some recent pieces that I think a media critic would want to follow up on. Multiple legacy news organizations running story after story about Russian bots, all inexcusably lazily relying on Hamilton 68, is one. Congressman Adam Schiff persistently asking Twitter to suspend a journalist is another. Seems like this should be right in the wheelhouse of a media critic.
So here's a dumb question, Adam (and a sincere one; I hope this doesn't come off as rhetorical). If no one reads legacy media editorials, why do they hold so much sway with law makers? Is it just some kind of vicious feedback loop of people toadying the leaders they follow in the name of "access?"
Matt Taibbi has some recent pieces that I think a media critic would want to follow up on. Multiple legacy news organizations running story after story about Russian bots, all inexcusably lazily relying on Hamilton 68, is one. Congressman Adam Schiff persistently asking Twitter to suspend a journalist is another. Seems like this should be right in the wheelhouse of a media critic.