Decline in Media, American Culture

The New York Post   reported last week that employment in the media declined by 15,000 in 2018.  Much of the reason, according to the Post, is substitution of social networking advertising for traditional media advertising.  Technology available through Facebook and Instagram enables advertisers to directly go to consumers rather than rely on media to serve as intermediaries.  The decline in the economic stability of the media comes at a time when its credibility is questioned by conservatives and even by the president. Yet, news organizations hope to convince consumers that they offer unbiased news so that consumers will subscribe.

Perhaps there are opportunities for new forms of news.  I subscribe to two online newspapers, but I read them infequently.  I more often rely on subscription newsletters like Jim Rickards's Strategic Intelligence   and David Stockman's Deep State Unclassified  as well as specialized investment sites like Morningstar  and Kitco.

A Lockean or conservative alternative to the leading newswire services might energize individual conservatives to start their own newsletters and blogs.  The advantage the socialist-and-pro-Fed press has is its funding base, which enables it to obtain breaking news. A news service that is made available at low cost to conservatives might help break the left's monopoly on news and information.



I have been listening to the audio version of Tucker Carlson's Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution. As I've previously reported, the book is well written.  I disagree with Carlson's take on economics, but his account of American culture upset me. Carlson seems to be making a case for New Deal-Roosevelt "liberalism" (I prefer the term "social democracy") to become the new conservatism, which is a mistake.  Many of today's core problems, such as income inequality, are the direct result of Progressivism and of New Deal centralization and subsidization of special interests. Also, immigration restrictions, which are central to Carlson's narrative, are not the solution, although I increasingly see immigration as a cultural threat, albeit one that could be eliminated by an education system that, unlike the current one, emphasizes a shared American culture.  

At the same time, Carlson eloquently tears apart militarists Max Boot and Bill Crystal, and his caricature of Chelsea Clinton, dumbed-down child of white privilege,  is hilarious.   His depiction of American elite ideology as a version of left-wing extremism mixed with militarism and some liberalism (as in immigration) suggests a convergence of Democratic and Republican elite ideology, and the elite's selfish indifference to the harm its money printing and confused economic policies have caused is why Trump won.  Unfortunately, while I like Trump, while I admire his courage in the face of media attacks, while I admire his contempt for both the media and policy elites, his emphasis on protectionism and immigration restrictions won’t change much, and protectionism will make things worse if not corrected down the road. 

Carlson's book scores many points when it comes to American culture, which is in disarray.  Unwed mothers have become a critical voting block, and the policies that they advocate will be corrosive to economic growth and progress.   On a social and cultural level,  I'm now convinced that immigration poses a serious threat to American culture and American freedom. The attacks on boys and men, the intolerance of feminist extremists, the absurd environmentalist religion—none of this is news, but put it all together, and it seems that the country is in serious moral trouble.

At the same time, Carlson's premise is ultimately elitist.  He concludes that elites need to do a better job of caring for the average American. In a free country without a Fed, big government, or the other Progressive paraphernalia of Progressivism and the New Deal, Americans would be able to care for themselves, as they did in the 19th century.