I've long considered myself a strong proponent of the free media. And I still do.

[Tommy Carcetti]

And by "media," I mean legitimate, traditional and mainstream media (e.g. NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, etc.), as opposed to either questionable to wholly fraudulent "media" sources like Fox News, NY Post, Newsmax, OANN and the like.

But I honestly have not seen such a reckless and irresponsible frenzy in the media over a story in quite a long time as I have as it relates to the whole "Should Biden step aside?" brouhaha that's erupted since the debate last week.

And I don't think it's outright hostility or contempt towards President Biden that's driving them; rather, I think it's a sense of intrigue and excitement about the potential of a huge and sensational story of a President stepping aside and the rush to replace him. There's an uncertainty factor there that the media really seems to feed on at times.

Part of it goes to the fact that in terms of sensational stories, President Biden is--in the eyes of the media and the public--a bit boring. Especially compared to his predecessor. He's been President for over three years and the general lack of drama as it relates to him and his behavior has left many in the media a bit starved for big stories.

What can you say though? After the four years of Trump, boring is what we desperately needed. But it created a void that left the media itchy.

So if there's any sense of uncertainty or big splashy news to be sought, at this point the media was begging for it. Even if it means subconsciously drumming up a crisis that doesn't actually exist.

As I've said before, the mainstream media is--like many things--an institution.

And like a lot of things that are considered big institutions--think the United States, or the Catholic Church, or law enforcement for example--there's a lot of good things that can be said about them. And also a lot of bad things that can be said about them. These big institutions will forever be mixed bags.

And unfortunately for the institution that is the mainstream media, its salivations and frenzy this past week about President Biden's viability has not been its best of moments.

[GPV]

1. They're trying to make the news. Again

[senseandsensibility]

2. They have a sacred constitutional obligation

to our democracy and they are failing.

[Think. Again.]

7. Let's be clear...

....the only legal obligation for-profit corporations of every type have is to increase their shareholder value.

[senseandsensibility]

8. Legal and constitutional may be two different things

but they are definitely failing in the latter.

[Think. Again.]

9. ...and succeeding in the former for as long as we keep giving them views.

[sop]

3. I respect journalists when they cover a story, not when they try to create one out of whole cloth.

[TheRealNorth]

4. It isn't the media's job....

To save Biden from his (alleged) senility.

If you are relying on the media to save us from TFG, then it's already over.

[shrike3]

6. It is the media's job to inform the public of threats to the nation.

I just read an article by a journalist who said that the issues of Biden's faculties are a distraction. And that the media must cover it relentlessly until he drops out. Then, and only then, can they cover the real threats to the nation. Do I believe that? Hell no. Project 2025 has been in the making for two years. It wasn't a secret. Why weren't they writing about it? Don't give me this bullshit that it's Biden's fault they aren't writing about it now.

[TheRealNorth]

10. That is where you are wrong

It is not their job to decide what is or isn't a "threat to this nation," unless you think every media outlet should be like Faux News.

[shrike3]

11. Dear, I used to work in the media. This was my job, every day. Thirty years-plus.

I think I know what I'm talking about. It was indeed my job: that's why it's called news judgement. What's important. What has value. What can dramatically change the lives of thousands, millions of people. Threats are not partisan. It used to be, back in the day, that news was considered a public service. Wasn't supposed to make money. All that's changed. Probably why you think only Fox News reports "threats to the nation."

[anciano]

5. In all fairness to the media,

their emphasis on drama and sensationalism is due to the fact that so many of their readers and viewers lap it up. It's just a sad commentary on the collective mindset of such a large part of the consuming public.

[shrike3]

12. News became about money. Probably right around the time of CNN and the first Gulf War.

News used to come in the tried and true six o'clock format. Then we got these 24-7 news channels which provide content at the lowest possible cost. Why we have talking heads, endless repeating of opinions, very little actual news, as you've probably noticed. Talking heads are a lot cheaper than hiring actual reporters who go and find out things. Also, sensationalism gets eyeballs. Makes money.

[Doc Sportello]

13. Excellent points

And I'm not a media basher or conspiracy nut. But this has gotten ridiculous. Most seem to not know the difference between being a journalist and just playing one on tv.