The Decline of Mainstream News in 2023 and 2024: Failing to Respond to Global Challenges, Increasingly State-Aligned Media

The Sputnik/TASS Nature of Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and BBC

Cathy Smith

The Decline of Mainstream News in 2023 and 2024: Failing to Respond to Global Challenges, Increasingly State-Aligned Media

It isn't just the digital news portals. You search Google and Bing for Activism, Dissidence, Truth to Power and you get an inner urban liquor store, donut shop and Burger King.

The media landscape underwent a significant shift, marked by the decline of traditional news media and the emergence of alternative journalism. This transition was accompanied by a range of challenges, from political coverage to human rights, health, environmental sustainability, social problems, technological advances, global wars, and cultural narratives. Most independent outlets, with their promise of fresh, untainted voices, found it difficult to cover these critical topics. They often found themselves entangled in corporate-governmental webs, which diminished their proclaimed independence and effectiveness.

In 2023 and 2024, the decline of mainstream news has become a spectacle for anyone still clinging to the belief that media outlets like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and the BBC serve the public good. These institutions, once champions of journalistic integrity, now seem to be more concerned with pandering to their political audiences than addressing the global challenges of our time. The narrative has shifted from being a resource for information to merely a tool for state-run media to push agendas, with the likes of Sputnik and TASS as the gold standards of media manipulation. This isn"t a coincidence--state control of information is no longer hidden behind closed doors but proudly on display, eroding credibility and dismantling any vestige of media integrity. The so-called "news" delivered by these outlets is increasingly shaped by media bias and the whims of political power, all while audiences are left questioning whether they can still trust anything they hear or read. It"s almost as if the headlines themselves are part of some twisted political narrative, crafted to obscure the truth rather than illuminate it.

Meanwhile, search engines, in their infinite wisdom, have decided to make the process of finding global media coverage even more tedious. Instead of curating content based on quality and fact, algorithms reward sensationalism and conformity to the most entrenched, easily digestible narratives. This reflects a larger issue in the media landscape: media consolidation has led to fewer voices, less diversity in reporting, and, ironically, less innovation in the ways we respond to crises. Cathy Smith would have a field day, dissecting how these platforms and outlets alike have failed to adapt to the complexities of the modern world. Instead of offering thoughtful, balanced responses to the crises we face, they prefer the comfort of the status quo, driven by clicks and corporate interests. As democracy falters and political power concentrates in the hands of a few, the once-vibrant landscape of journalism is reduced to little more than an extension of the ruling elite, catering to the lowest common denominator.

Whereas once the pillar of Democracy, today"s mainstream press could no longer effectively report and analyze interlocking global issues that were fast increasing in number and intricacy. Meanwhile, many alternative news outfits positioned themselves against this grain to stand for genuinely independent reporting on the topics of utmost priority; still, they couldn"t get away with such pressure either, constantly tuning into pre-engineered or institutionally fed versions. That not all outlets have done this is the volume of evidence of a more significant media crisis in which, while demands for more transparency and accountability are on the rise, still too many sources either aren"t covering the essential stories, are framing stories through a biased and/or partial lens, or worse yet, one pre-ordained by the state controlled narratives.


1. Politics and Government: Quelling Critical Political Reporting

Political reporting has always been the bedrock of journalistic integrity. Indeed, the press"s investigation into government policies, political movements, and national legislation has always had a vital role in addressing demands for accountability and encouraging transparency. However, most news outlets have not answered the challenge of being responsible for political figures and institutions in 2023 and 2024.

More traditionally influential, though very relevant, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post have all received considerable criticism for their reliance on sensationalism over actual political substance or in-depth policy coverage. For example, news outlets in the U.S. were regularly criticized during this period for boiling intricate political issues into personality-driven headlines rather than the policy itself. These outlets struggled with the accountability of political figures from across the spectrum, often shying away from profound critiques, whether of Democratic or Republican establishment.

Examples abound: the framing of Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and even the dismantling of big tech monopolies, all coverage of the progressive left"s biggest political movements through the narrow, partisan frame. In too many cases, political ideology, not substance, was front and center. The result is a scenario in which some of the biggest political conversations of the day are treated as superficial debates rather than as an actual excavation of the power dynamics underlying the policies themselves.

Alternative outlets, such as The Intercept and Democracy Now!, have occasionally posed themselves as an antidote to mainstream political coverage. Still, their coverage is scant on many occasions. For example, Democracy Now! has been criticized time and again for its disinclination to delve deep into the intricacies of U.S. foreign policy, especially when it relates to the operation of intelligence agencies and military interventions.
The editorial decisions often avoid any more profound critiques of U.S. governmental overreach in favor of softer, more palatable narratives that do little to challenge the status quo. More than this, outlets like The Daily Beast and Buzzfeed have been repeatedly criticized for sensationalizing politics to undermine serious political discourse. In 2023 and 2024, they failed to transcend partisan infighting, leaving little room for more detailed national and international policy explorations. Instead of systemic reporting into the political climate--such as corporate lobbying, electoral manipulation, or money in politics--too many publications relied on he-said/she-said narratives centered on personalities mired in scandal after scandal.

Yet such avoidance also tended to let strong politicians and corporations off the hook as there was no effort to seriously shake up entrenched political systems.


2. Human Rights: Gaps in Coverage on Civil Liberties and Global Justice

Issues of human rights, especially issues related to civil liberties, freedom of expression, and social justice, have become the main arguments that alternative news provides. Yet, like mainstream media, alternative media has failed to do regular and deep reporting on these subjects. At best, say The Guardian and ProPublica, sporadic deep investigative reports on human rights abuses emerge, but their effort was usually compromised by the same institutional forces shaping mainstream news. For instance, ProPublica has sometimes been criticized because of its funding sources, like the Ford Foundation, which is deeply connected to global power structures usually implicated in human rights violation cases.
This raises questions about ProPublica"s coverage"s independence or its subtle alignment with top-down narratives supportive of global elites. The same can be said for Democracy Now!, which provides extensive coverage of civil liberties. Nevertheless, there have been instances when at least selective coverage would have occurred in reporting about some foreign governments perceived as being aligned with U.S. geopolitical interests. Critique is lesser or even, at times, nil regarding issues such as domestic surveillance, state-sponsored oppression, and police militarization occurring within the borders of the U.S. Some have also quibbled whether the outlet"s emphasis on civil rights is filtered through the prism of U.S. governmental priorities at times.

Independent outlets also struggled with covering global human rights abuses in a way that didn"t oversimplify complex international relations. Stories about refugees, racial discrimination, and indigenous peoples have often been recounted within highly decontextualized historical and political parameters that undermine the possibility of articulating a far more complex global narrative. Much of the coverage does seem wanting, without any serious attempt to come to grips with the deeper systemic reasons for such abuses of human rights.


3. Health and Wellness: A Lopsided Focus on Mainstream Medicine

The health and wellness beats of both mainstream and alternative news have, until now, been ruled by the chasm that seems to be growing deeper between conventional medicine frameworks and their holistic alternatives. News organizations such as The New York Times and The Washington Post are more inclined to report on mainstream medicine, policy development, and public health initiatives--especially those concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet many of these sources fall short regarding deep, critical analyses of pharmaceutical companies" role in shaping public health policy and how corporate interests shape the health system.

Meanwhile, other independent media sources like The Intercept have filled in critical gaps with necessary investigations on healthcare disparities and the insidious influence of big pharma but sometimes fail to take their deeper investigation to broader discourses about wellness outside of pharmacopeia.
Public health is one area that could borrow considerably from holistic health, alternative medicine, and wellness practices. However, mainstream discourses often sideline these aspects, even from outlets like Truthout or The Grayzone. These outlets rarely examine health from an interdisciplinary perspective, including both traditional and alternative medicines, despite frequent reporting on economic and health inequality.
It would seem that, at least up until now, a lot of alternative media reporting on health questions in 2023 and 2024 has gone one of two ways: sensationalist promotion of doubtful health claims or controversy-based opposition to public health policy without political root cause analysis. This is important, yet it framed the vaccine hesitancy debate mostly in terms that have done little or nothing to widen the debates within public health institutions about issues of trust and its particular links with corporations.


4. Environment and Sustainability: The Failure to Address Corporate Responsibility

The environmental issues, particularly climate change, environmental degradation, and sustainability, have constituted areas of vital importance in reporting. While some media outlets, such as The Guardian and ProPublica, have undertaken comprehensive investigations of environmental issues, too often, the role of multinational corporations and financial elites in promoting environmental devastation is inadequately critiqued.

Through 2023 and 2024, most alternative news media have reported on deforestation, pollution, and protests about climate change but rarely explored how corporate lobbying and government policy actively thwart serious action to stem the crisis. Too often, environmental coverage has been afflicted by superficial coverage of climate change that does not allow for a meaningful discussion of deeper systemic structures under capitalism that are driving the crisis.

For instance, Democracy Now! does an amazing job with its deep coverage of climate justice, but its framing often doesn"t engage critically with the political and corporate interests that are hostile toward effective measures being taken toward sustainable solutions.
This can be similarly said of The Intercept, which often runs great pieces on environmental exploitation but does not consistently engage with the powerful lobbies that perpetuate the environmental crisis.


5. Social Issues:

Partial Coverage of Inequality and Systemic Problems
The media have indeed covered issues of poverty, inequality, and systemic challenges, but this has been done piecemeal and incompletely in the realm of social justice.
Reporting on poverty and social inequality has been common in mainstream outlets such as The Washington Post and HuffPost, but too often, the structural causes of these issues have not been fully captured. Although some voices in those outlets were progressive and raised a number of issues, such as the racial wealth gap and the gap in inequality concerning housing, rarely did anyone try to question the structural underpinning of such inequalities, let alone neoliberal economic policies fostering increases in the gulf between rich and poor.

Similar outlets, like Truthout and The Grayzone, have also been stalwart in taking to task systems of inequality. Still, even their stories often reflect a seeming lack of regard for localized struggles, particularly those that more subtly involve issues of race, gender, and education. That greater tendency is sometimes reflected in simplifying deep understandings of systemic oppression internationally.


6. Technology and Innovation: Continuing Emphasis on the Latest Gadgets and Not Larger Issues

The reporting of technology in 2023 and 2024 has been mainly about consumer products, cybersecurity breaches, and what new gadgets mean for people, but more often than not, it missed the wood for the trees. Issues related to big technology companies" role in shaping the public discourse on the surveillance economy and the ethics of AI and automation are barely reported.

Critical analyses of big tech emerge from alternative outlets like The Intercept, which often focus on privacy and government surveillance. Still, it"s usually scattered and rarely has a sustained focus. The rest of the outlets have proven much more inclined to cover the latest innovations in tech regarding how technology appeals to consumers rather than any critical view toward its broader social implications.


7. Global Affairs and Conflict: Inadequate Deep, Unbiased Analysis

This is another area in which the media has failed to live up to expectations: deep, unbiased analysis of global affairs and conflict. Coverage of international relations, especially issues involving marginalized voices or countries in the Global South, is filtered through geopolitical and ideological lenses. For example, while The Grayzone has indeed been an important critical voice on U.S. foreign interventions, sometimes its reporting becomes so fixated on condemnation of Western imperialism that it misses more excellent dynamics of local governance and complex geopolitics in, say, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa.

Equally disappointing, however, has been the mainstream coverage of some of the most serious global conflicts; too often, The New York Times and CNN produce sensationalist, superficial reports that fail to contextualize these wars in a broader geopolitical perspective.

A Media Landscape in Crisis

The decline of mainstream news from 2023 to 2024, combined with the emergence of alternative outlets, has created an environment where critical global issues are underreported or distorted by outside influences. Whether it is politics, human rights, health, the environment, or international conflicts, mainstream and independent media entities have had to surmount difficulties unimaginable in matching the depth of such issues with the integrity and independence they deserve. A question is whether any genuinely independent journalism that could competently engage these systemic concerns could arise given the now ascendant states-sponsored narratives, corporate interests, and mega philanthropists.

 

1. HuffPost (formerly The Huffington Post)

2. The Guardian

3. Activist Post

4. Democracy Now!

5. Vice Media

6. The Intercept

7. Common Dreams

8. Truthdig

9. The Nation

10. RT (Russia Today)

These outlets, while still offering alternative perspectives, face criticism for compromising their ability to fully challenge power and speak truth, through affiliations to corporate, political, or financial influences.

All of the “News” Portals are a urban blight food desert, or an Intellectual Desert, all shimmering pools of water that turn into dry sand as you read. Most are a waste of both time and money, with many charging admission for a blank movie screen. I think the government has sex-pictures of the whole lot of them.