Episode 195: David Leonhardt and the Elite Consensus Manufacturing Machine
Jan 24, 2024
auto_awesome
This podcast discusses the rise of centrist micro news platforms and the dangers of shaping a center-right consensus. They also criticize biased coverage of the Israeli assault on Gaza and analyze the implications of Gorsuch's ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby. The hosts explore the ideological tendency in morning news and question the curation of stories within the genre. They express moral exhaustion from writing quick hit op-ed pieces and analyze the mindset of political elites.
David Leonhardt's approach to news and analysis is characterized by promoting a 'move along, nothing to see here' mentality and reinforces the notion that things are generally okay in the United States.
Leonhardt's curated news content often favors conservative policy solutions and is targeted to uphold the interests and perspectives of the perceived important audience, reinforcing established power dynamics and the status quo.
The rise of curated daily newsletters and their popularity among busy professionals transforms the news into a social currency, discouraging meaningful political engagement and turning politics into a game of entertainment.
Deep dives
David Leonhardt and the 'Move Along, Nothing to See Here' Tendency
David Leonhardt's approach to news and analysis can be characterized as promoting a 'move along, nothing to see here' mentality. He tends to acknowledge imperfections in society and the inadequacies of political structures, but ultimately presents the idea that things are generally okay in the United States. Leonhardt curates and interprets stories in a way that reinforces this notion, emphasizing marginal improvements within existing structures and discouraging deeper examination or questioning of the status quo. He assumes good intentions and downplays the potential dangers of dissent or critical analysis, making his approach power-serving and flattery to those in positions of authority.
The Repackaging of Conventional Wisdom for the 'Important' Audience
Leonhardt's work can be seen as repackaging conventional wisdom for an audience that is perceived as important or influential. He aims to provide easily digestible news nuggets and explanations that cater to those who seek news that reaffirms their worldview without subverting or challenging existing power structures. His approach often favors conservative policy solutions and downplays or ignores more radical or critical perspectives. The content he curates can be seen as targeted to uphold the interests and perspectives of the perceived important audience, reinforcing established power dynamics and reinforcing the status quo.
The 'Move Along, Nothing to See Here' Tendency and Its Limitations
While Leonhardt's approach of presenting news in a way that suggests everything is generally fine in society may have its appeal, it has limitations. This tendency to downplay or ignore deeper issues, dissent, or critical analysis can lead to a lack of accountability for those in power and a reinforcement of existing power structures. It can also limit the ability to address systemic issues and promote meaningful change. By prioritizing the comfort and reassurance of an audience perceived as important, Leonhardt's approach may miss opportunities for deeper examination, challenging the status quo, and addressing the root causes of societal problems.
Criticism of David Leonhardt's Curation and Interpretation
There are criticisms of Leonhardt's curation and interpretation of news. Some argue that his approach is overly deferential to those in power, assuming good intentions and downplaying potential ulterior motives or systemic issues. His tendency to emphasize marginal improvements within existing structures may overlook the need for more fundamental change. By shaping and framing the news in a way that reinforces established norms and power dynamics, Leonhardt's work can be seen as limiting the diversity of perspectives and discouraging critical analysis.
The Genre of Explanatory Journalism and Flattering the Elites
Explanatory journalism often serves to create a sense of complacency among its audience by downplaying or avoiding critical analysis of important issues. It is designed to foster conversations where people can casually mention articles or stories they heard, without actually challenging the existing power structures or seeking meaningful change. This style of journalism flatters both the readers, making them feel informed and knowledgeable, as well as the elites who are portrayed as experts making scientific decisions for the betterment of society. It obscures the fact that these elites often lack true power and are simply caretakers of a system that operates independently and can be disconnected from the reality of the problems in our society.
The Transformation of News into Social Commodity and the Loss of Political Action
The rise of curated daily newsletters and their popularity among busy, well-educated professionals has transformed the news into a social currency, rather than a precursor to political action. These newsletters target a specific audience who prefer quick, curated information that can be used to impress others in casual conversations. By reinforcing the idea that politics is a separate professional domain, these newsletters uphold the existing order and discourage meaningful political engagement. They turn politics into a game of entertainment, erasing moral considerations and reducing complex issues to simplified talking points. This disempowers individuals and hinders their ability to challenge the status quo or effect meaningful change.
"Make sense of the day’s news and ideas," urges The Morning, a daily New York Times newsletter. "Get smarter, faster on news and information that matters to you," Axios assures its readership. "This is how the news should sound," The New York Times again declares, via its podcast The Daily.
Over the last ten years, roughly speaking, we’ve seen the proliferation of the daily digest-style newsletter and podcast at legacy and new media organizations. Inspired, at least loosely, by the so-called explanatory journalism of Vox and similar outlets that arose in the mid-2010s, publications now commonly offer bite-sized breakdowns of the news that allegedly matters most, delivered to the inboxes of upwardly mobile, dinner-party-hosting, perennially on-the-go professionals - or at least those who want to think of themselves as such.
There’s certainly nothing wrong with accessibility in news media—quite the opposite, in fact. But, for corporate “explanatory” news models, it’s worth asking who makes the decisions about which news is the “most important,” and about how that news is framed. How do seemingly benign, even folksy promises to “make sense of the news” mask the ideology of corporate media institutions? And what are the dangers of herding audiences into a center-right political consensus that issues complaints like “campus speech is vexing” and “the left is less welcoming than the right”?
On this episode, we examine the rise and hegemony of centrist micro-news platforms–from Axios’s trademarked "Smart Brevity" to The New York Times’ David Leonhardt’s newsletter The Morning and The Daily podcast–looking at how they package left-punching, pathologically incurious, glib news nuggets served up to busy, upwardly mobile, well-meaning liberals.
Our guest is writer Jacob Bacharach.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
