Why Am I Still Courting Legacy Media?
Because most of us are not immune to clickbait, I read a Newsweek article yesterday titled Jim Acosta’s Rumored CNN Exit Sparks MAGA Celebrations: ‘Finally Listened.’
“MAGA has rejoiced on social media as Jim Acosta, the longtime anchor, correspondent and foe of President Donald Trump, is to depart from CNN.” the article began. “Newsweek contacted Acosta for comment via social media outside normal working hours.”
Though Newsweek claims to be unbiased, the article is already highlighting “MAGA Celebrations” versus any sort of free speech outrage, positioning this as a win for the Trump regime. They also use the word “foe” to describe Acosta, rather than say something like “frequent critic” or “regularly held Trump’s feet to the fire.” They also say rather plainly that while they reached out to Acosta, they did so via “social media” outside “normal working hours,” i.e., the bare minimum for plausible deniability in getting both sides.
Then, they included the section about “What People Are Saying.” Again, to show their neutrality, they included Acosta’s resignation statement. The rest? Extremely unbiased Twitter takes, provided with no context. “
First off is Charlie Kirk. I’m not going to bother repeating any of these tweets because they are your typical biased right-wing garbage. Kirk isn’t a journalist or writer, but the CEO of a pro-Trump youth organization. Sucking up to Trump makes him money.
Then, they use “journalist” Nick Sortor. I went on Sortor’s Twitter to see his background. On-scene covering stories MSM won’t. | Seen on @TuckerCarlson Tonight, Fox News, Newsmax, Timcast, etc. • #EastPalestine #Maui #WNC” his bio reads. Not my side, but sounds legit enough. I clicked on his LinkTree to check out his work. There isn’t any. But there are Venmo, CashApp and PayPal accounts, so, more grifter than journalist.
They also include a “Media personality” that’s simply a meme creator and a “self-described amateur historian.” The reporting here—specifically the lack of context—is embarrassing, but that is sort of what passes for editorial coverage in Newsweek these day, so I shouldn’t have been surprised.
Why did I click on it, then? Well, outrage works, and the title annoyed me. For anyone who follows news media insider baseball, a big story in the past few weeks has been CNN deciding to move journalist Jim Acosta’s 10 AM show to a midnight time slot, most likely to appease Donald Trump, whom Acosta famously had an antagonistic relationship with when he was CNN’s white house correspondent during Trump’s first administration. I’ve read more than one outlet refer to him as self-aggrandizing, performative, or bombastic. Still, I always appreciated his willingness to paraphrase MTV, stop being polite, and start being real. Acosta’s approach wasn’t to coddle Trump (or Obama) or curry favor. He would talk over him to be heard, argue back, and point out inconsistencies. In other words—at least, in my opinion—he did his job.
At the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing and bombastic myself, I’ve always believed it was a writer's job to expose what people don’t want to be exposed to, punch up, expose inconsistencies and hypocrisies, and question everything. That isn’t, however, how legacy media is approaching things. The publications and channels that have name recognition, and thus, the publications and the channels that many of us writers (myself included) have long dreamed of writing for, are becoming neutered versions of what they once were (though I do feel like there’s an argument that maybe they were always neutered in one way or the other and it’s just harder to hide now). I 100% agree with this February 2023 Dame Magazine headline that reads Legacy Media Tilts Two Ways: Center Right and Far Right.
Now, does every legacy media want to help usher us into a Fourth Reich? No. That would be dramatic. But I think they want to appease the loudest voices in the room, even if it’s not their target audience. They want to curry favor with an administration that does not champion freedom of speech or the press. I also think legacy media is starting to lean farther to the right because it doesn’t want the kind of business speedbumps that, say, Budweiser faced. After all, legacy media is less interested in getting to the bottom of things than it is in making money.
Jacob Nelson wrote an excellent Nieman Journalism Lab piece in June, Is journalism’s trust problem about money, not politics?, which says,
The business of journalism depends primarily on audience attention. News organizations make money from this attention indirectly, by profiting off the advertisements — historically print and broadcast, now increasingly digital — that accompany news stories. They also monetize this attention directly, by charging audiences for subscriptions to their offerings.
Through this lens, one could compare a media increasingly catering to what their audience wants to keep subscriptions coming to well, OnlyFans; it’s pimping itself out for views, clicks, and revenue.
Why, then, I find myself asking…myself…am I spending so much time pitching legacy publications like The New York Times and Washington Post or recognizable magazines like Men’s Journal? Why pitch outlets that don’t care about quality? Why pitch outlets that are increasingly disregarded by anyone with even half a critical lens?
Partly, it’s the platform. Though there are think pieces out the ass about how legacy media is dying, they still command an audience. And they legitimize you when you’re a newer writer, like me. Even though it’s the most shallow (and also, maybe most fun?) piece I’ve ever written, the byline I scored in GQ two summers ago is the one people seemed most impressed by. It also has opened up a lot of doors. I’d been pitching pieces for 2-3 years beforehand with little forward momentum, but once I was able to say “his writing has appeared in GQ.” in my bio, other opportunities like Fast Company, Slate, and the aforementioned Men’s Journal were easier to obtain (and even though I’ve never written for them, I’ve had other notable publications at least answer my pitches).
That said, how we consume content is changing. More and more people are listening to podcasts, watching TIkToks, and learning things through video. And thanks to platforms like Patreon and Substack, we’ve seen a boom in independent journalism that isn’t constricted by things like what advertisers or their owners think. Last night, after signing off his show for the last time, Acosta announced that he’d be starting a career as an independent journalist with a show on Substack. While it might not pay as well as a CNN gig initially, there’s a lot of room to grow and fewer parameters. If I already had the same type of platform he did—i.e., a recognizable name and high social following—I’d probably be going down the same route, publishing the content I wanted when I wanted without the oversight of any corporate overlords.
But, I currently have less than 500 followers on Instagram and, as of this writing, a whopping 7 on Bluesky (I have a Twitter, but I barely use it…193 followers there for anyone interested, though), and am not independently (or CNN-money) wealthy, so for the time being, I’ll still be pitching legacy outlets with stories I think should see the light of day.
But I’m also really starting to explore other paths to written success, one that might reach newer, younger, more relevant audiences and ones that give me a little bit more creative control over what I write (the downside is the no editorial or copy-editing feedback; prepare for more typos!). I don’t know exactly what that will look like (am I going to start a TikTok? Be big on reels? Start a podcast talking with my friends about our hot pop culture takes), but I think it’s increasingly where interesting writers and journalists are heading.
My first stab? Resurrecting a Medium account I started years ago and starting to pump out some thoughts there, just to see where that leads (and to let some essays that haven’t yet seen the light of day see the light of day). Check it out if you’d be so inclined.
