The Outlets Aren't There And The Money's Not There Because Trust In Journalism's Not There Anymore

One morning last month, Seymour Hersh set off to buy a newspaper. The reporter walked for 30 minutes, covered six blocks of his neighbourhood, Georgetown in Washington DC, and didn’t see a single sign of life. No newsstands on street corners selling the glossies and the dailies. No self-service kiosk where you can slide in a dollar and pull out a paper. “Finally, I found a drugstore that had two copies of the New York Times in the back,” Hersh recalls. He bought one for himself. He can’t help but wonder whether anybody bought the second.

Probably not, they were all comfortably scrolling through their social media feeds instead.

Hersh has been a staff writer at the New York Times and the New Yorker. He’s broken stories on Vietnam, Watergate, Gaza and Ukraine. But the free press is in crisis, newspapers are in flux and investigative journalism may be facing a deadline of its own. “I don’t think I could do now what I did 30, 40, 50 years ago,” says the now 88-year-old. “The outlets aren’t there. The money’s not there. So I don’t know where we all are right now.”

You're up that well-known creek. And you don't appear to have a paddle... 

Editors and management might claim they want good stories, but in practice they fear them, because scoops tend to cause trouble and involve a big fight. Tellingly, the film includes an archive clip of Hersh speaking on stage in the 1970s. He says: “What we have here in America is not so much censorship as self-censorship by the press.”

That 'self-censorship' - is it in the room with you right now, Seymour?  

If that was true then, Poitras says, it’s doubly so today. She’s alarmed not just by Trump’s authoritarian push to stifle a free press but by the alacrity with which several media giants have already rolled over.

The situation is parlous, Poitras says. “What we’re seeing in the US is the preemptive capitulation of institutions to avoid a legal battle they would have won. That’s shameful. I don’t know how they explain that to themselves. It’s the worst precedent you can possibly set.”

They clearly don't have your certainty that they'd have won. 

“There are no gatekeepers on information any more,” says Obenhaus. “The so-called legacy media is so dispersed. And without that centre – that base – it’s hard for good journalism to break through, which means people are increasingly relying on unreliable sources. It troubles me tremendously that the Sy Hersh of today might be writing on Substack or some other platform – and you’d never even hear of them unless the algorithm connected you to their work.”

Times have changed, maybe you should change with them, because when I want the truth about a story in the headlines, I no longer look to the legacy media for it...