PJM: Is It Time For Twelve Steps For the Legacy Media?


Charlie Martin makes a fair observation. For my part, I wish the family of the addict would stop denying the addiction.

Co-dependent addiction on the part of the addict’s family (readers, consumers of media) takes the following familiar forms:

  • Claiming that media generally does an acceptable job when in fact — objectively — it does not. See, for example, Sharyl Attkisson’s list of 111 media mistakes, which Martin links to. Or, better yet, read Mark Levin’s book, “Unfreedom of the Press.” Media malfeasance is well documented in our time in these and many other sources.
  • Claiming that media content is invalid or false for no better reason than the identity of the source of the content. This claim is obviously fallacious, for the simple reason that a bad newspaper, for example, may well publish a good (meaning factually accurate and important) article.
  • Accepting without skepticism what one’s own preferred media outlet has to say. In my experience, this type of sheep-like behavior most commonly occurs among consumers of content produced by the NYT and WAPO, but FOX News consumers and others are not immune.

I don’t mean to suggest we have met the enemy and it is us, but to the extent that Martin’s observation is true, the co-dependency observation is true, as well.

9 thoughts on “PJM: Is It Time For Twelve Steps For the Legacy Media?

  1. What a laughable “analysis!” 111 examples of errors in the media gathered from all “legacy media” sources over a period of three years. Big whoop! Almost nothing compared to the daily flood of lies and misinformation from just one source – Fox News. And a tiny percentage of the 15,000 plus lies coming from the Liar-in-chief during the same period.

    I will not challenge one fact offered. It is likely true that 9 out of 10 self-confessed Republicans whole-heartedly swallow Trump’s lies about “legacy media.” That is to be expected in a party that has expunged decency, common sense, educated people and respect for facts and the rule of law from its ranks.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “What a laughable ‘analysis!'”

      Right. Spoken like a true co-dependant. For the record, Martin’s article is not an “analysis.” It is just an observation.

      If it were a test, though, you fail.


    2. @Roberts

      It is an analysis alright. And the conclusion of the analysis was that “legacy media” is comparable to an addict. And needs to change. Total bullshit, of course and especially laughable when appearing in an outlet such a pjmedia.


      1. RE: “And the conclusion of the analysis was that ‘legacy media’ is comparable to an addict.”

        OK, explain to us how “legacy media” is comparable to a healthy, non-addicted adult. So far, all you’ve done is deny that Martin’s observation is valid.

        You have chosen to defend a negative assertion, a common behavior of co-dependents to addiction. I’m giving you a chance to state and defend a positive one.


  2. “… Trump claimed a $916 million loss that COULD HAVE (caps mine, obviously) allowed him to legally avoid paying federal income taxes for up to 18 years.”

    Nothing suggested or implied. Just a simple accounting fact that put big numbers into perspective for an average non-expert in taxes which is most of us.

    Funny, Attkisson has 111 examples over a few years in all major media. Trump’s got 10,000 misstatements, exaggerations and or outright lies. I know, I know he never did any of that so we disagree.

    Here’s the thing in my view. Yes, media makes errors. Yes, media is biased. Yes, media is partisan. We all know that. You don’t like NYT or WAPO, got that too. I’m not a fan of NY POST, Washington Times and others.

    But the breadth of most major media is big and their resources are great. There is little reason with the internet and a few bucks a month not to see a good mix. I subscribe to WSJ, FOX as well as NYT and WAPO. I also check out websites like Vox, Axios, Intercept, etc. I am not naive enough to swallow all the stuff they all put out.

    That said, the First Amendment simply gave us the freedom to challenge power. There is no guarantee of quality, just that you won’t get arrested for criticizing power, public or private. Without that freedom, we are screwed. That First Amendment is our very best defense against tyranny. Bar none. If we had to rely on the 2nd, we are done for as a nation.

    A lot of effort goes into crippling the press by cherry picking examples of bad or just biased journalism and by a president who admits to purposefully confusing his own citizens by attacking the press. All the effort to denigrate the press shows how important that institution is to our very existence as a Constitutional and free country.

    Maybe it is just me, but the vast majority of the claims against the press come from the right. My theory is that the conservatives don’t like the status quo to be questioned. Why? Because the conservatives are the status quo for the most part.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “Here’s the thing in my view. Yes, media makes errors. Yes, media is biased. Yes, media is partisan. We all know that.”

      In my view, the media is not just biased, but overwhelmingly so, and in favor of the left. This creates fundamental problems for the functioning of our democracy, which sensible and knowledgeable people can readily see. It should concern them, even if they are leftists themselves.

      But instead of addressing the issue, too many people pretend it doesn’t exist, or they blame the wrong villain. This is not a rational response. It is, rather, textbook co-dependency syndrome.


      1. You’re ignoring the huge amount of biased right wing media. In the age of the internet, such influence is well noted and easy to find.

        That should concern the conservatives as well.

        So all this is noted, and interested people can pick, choose, ignore or research to their heart’s content. No longer can conservatives whine about being picked on by the press, or at least not with a straight face or fingers not crossed. Especially with powerhouses like FOX and the Murdoch empire.

        So we are back to the fact that the value of the First Amendment is not whose ox is gored, but that the government and private power both have a lot of eyes watching. And for what it is worth, Trump’s tiresome mantra of “fake news” is becoming more and more like a fart in a windstorm. Yeah, he said it, but we don’t hear it so much anymore. Yet, having a president whose is sworn to uphold the Constitution denigrate the press as an enemy like ISIS is just plain unpatriotic.

        The free media, and speech, are what keeps the guns holstered. Once we go to the 2nd, it is, as we used to say in my business, a wrap.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: “You’re ignoring the huge amount of biased right wing media.”

        I’m not ignoring it. I am positively asserting that no “huge amount of biased right wing media” even exists.

        The assertion obviously is difficult to prove because there is no standard, scientific definition of the terms right wing and left wing, by which an objective measurement might be made. So I make the assertion without proof.

        Proof, however, is not essential to my point, which remains valid. My point is that people who should know better make excuses for media that media doesn’t deserve.

        Here, for example, a working journalist makes a substantiated argument in support of the observation that contemporary media has a “record of unreliability, mendacity, and flat-out lies.” It makes no sense to respond to the argument by saying, “That’s not true” unless you can show that the substantiations are false or that the conclusions based on them are fallacious.

        It is especially irrational to dispute the argument by suggesting that other considerations (which are not under discussion) apply. That in fact is the exact co-dependency error I set out to bring attention to.


        1. “I am positively asserting that no “huge amount of biased right wing media” even exists.”

          You can’t be serious, but I am afraid you feel that you are.

          The right wing echo chamber is notorious. Google some kind of conservative assertion whether true or wildly conspiratorial and it might take a person five or six pages before getting to a non-cut and paste site flying the red flag.

          The top ratings go to conservative sites and punditry.

          Yet, to me, that is not a problem so long as we can write and read what we want without fear of government repercussions of the kind that Trump has alluded to with license revocations or lawsuits.

          Or worse as in Putin repercussions which involve graveyards.

          Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s