In 1965, Barry McGuire recorded and released the iconic protest song “Eve of Destruction.” It shot up the charts and quickly became an anthem that marked the tumultuous decade. It put the issues of the day into sharp relief: The draft, the possibility of nuclear war, the March in Selma, the Watts riots, and the John F. Kennedy assassination were but a few of the references outlined in the popular tune. Quite simply, the lyrics gave a voice to a younger generation at odds with the establishment.
Today, as we sit on the precipice of a second Donald Trump administration, another division appears to be taking place – not a generational one between young and old, but rather a battle between the new media and the establishment media.
It is a time of crossroads, and the late, great legacy media elites now have a choice to make: Will they go with the winds of change, or will they stand guard over their once powerful – now waning – influence over American culture and politics? Put another way, one wonders if they will choose to survive or if they are determined to preside over their own destruction.
Legacy Media Hanging by a Thread
By every measure, the legacy media appear to be hanging on a thread of vivid color. The slips employees are getting are pink, and the bottom line that chief executive officers are looking at is red. It’s just a holy mess from all angles – especially for news businesses that must pay attention to their bottom lines.
Still, and astonishingly, it doesn’t seem like the good old boys have seen enough light to change their ways. A few examples of how they have covered the incoming Trump administration is indicative of their mindset. For example, when former special counsel Jack Smith dumped a 174-page report that endeavored to prove Trump tried to obstruct justice in the aftermath of the 2020 election, Washington’s most well-known legacy paper – once proudly owned by the Graham family and now by tech magnate Jeff Bezos – covered it as if Trump had been tried and convicted. The newspaper's standard 5,000-word (hyperbole here) article was more of a one-sided defense of Smith than a paper giving both angles of the story. But it is hardly alone.
The New York Times covered the Smith story in much the same manner:
“The report amounted to an extraordinary rebuke of a president-elect, capping a momentous legal saga that saw the man now poised to regain the powers of the nation’s highest office charged with crimes that struck at the heart of American democracy.”
Instead of balanced reporting, The Times' coverage waffled between sounding like sour grapes and an epistle of lamentations.
In yet another example, both newspapers are covering the confirmation hearings of Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense as if he were a convicted criminal. The sheer column inches of negativity about the decorated veteran are staggering. Clearly, his checkered personal past is an issue, but it’s not as if womanizing and imbibing too much alcohol are novel topics in Washington. A better way to tackle the Hegseth process would have been to point out he has a few skeletons in his closet, but he also comes to the table with a stellar service background.
Others in the old guard network appear to be lining up as part of the loyal opposition. The New Republic recently ran a piece on Trump’s hyperbolic assertion that he will end the Ukraine-Russia war on “day one.” Taking him literally rather than seriously (a standard head-fake used by the legacy media), TNR came out swinging, “Donald Trump is backtracking on his big campaign promise to end the Ukraine war in 24 hours, according to his special envoy to Ukraine.” The article droned on about a 100-day timeline offered by a Fox News TV guest and President Trump’s day-one remark. Such coverage has caused a mass exodus from the legacy media to smaller outlets where Americans feel they can hear either the facts, more balanced coverage, or – wonder of wonders – both.
It’s worth taking a moment to juxtapose the social media platforms' response to the new administration and that of the legacy media. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg may not be genuine in turning over a new leaf, but at least he’s trying to take a less aggressive stance and promises that he has learned his lesson. X, of course, had its come-to-Trump moment when Elon Musk purchased Twitter. And even Bezos has managed to tamp down the rebellion between Amazon and the incoming president, though one wonders if Bezos will eventually try to right the ship at Washington’s flagship newspaper, which has been bleeding red for a while now.
There are two ways to look at this: Either those in the legacy media can’t stop themselves from engaging in a constant drumbeat of left-wing coverage, or they don’t care what will happen should they continue on such a trajectory. Either way, they are participating in a near-certain death spiral. Standing on the eve of destruction, they may want to rethink their descent into the abyss.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
