What is "mainstream media" anymore?

This is a good analysis of the changing definition and contributors to mainstream media, from The Atlantic. A good and interesting, if kind of devastating, read if you think about it from newspapers' points of view:

The ‘Mainstream Media’ Has Already Lost

Being outside the mainstream is, today, seen as more authentic, more in tune with Real America. Trump’s constant criticisms of the “fake-news media” have been enthusiastically embraced by his downballot copycats. Complaints about alleged liberal media bias have been amplified by commentators who are themselves overtly partisan: Tucker Carlson, Russell Brand, Dan Bongino, Megyn Kelly, Charlie Kirk, Alex Jones. The underlying premise is that all media skew toward one side or another, but at least these people are honest about it. That allows them to speak alongside Trump at rallies (Kelly), embrace bizarre conspiracy theories (Jones), talk about their encounters with demons (Carlson), and continue to work despite multiple allegations of sexual assault (Brand, who has denied the claims)—all things that would be out-of-bounds for actual journalists.

 

This era has seen the significant loss of influence/trust in most of our institutions that knit the country together. The press, the judicial and legal system, political, religion, about all we have left is sports.
Its odd, how many movies and tv shows featuring press plotlines have the "the establishment" trying to get the press to quash a story because it will undermine the public's faith in institutions?

CNN’s Van Jones Frets ‘Fringe’ Has Replaced ‘Mainstream’ Media: ‘We’re on Cable News Getting 1-2 Million’ While They’re ‘Getting 14 Million Streams’

 

That’s a good and depressing read, WT.

The worst part, as someone still slogging away to cover city budgets, agriculture issues and ballot initiatives, is how many of these new social media “journalists” have discovered people no longer caring about public policy or issues.

If elections and politics have become a cult of personality, we’re a lot closer to the end of a democracy than we thought.

 

The Mainstream Media is Sears. What makes Amazon successful is that they don't have "something for everyone" - more or less, they have everything that someone could want.
Maybe you "break up" big media, like CNN - turn it into a dozen targeted broadcasts a day for very different and specific demographics. We always laugh at the "stars" of Dancing with the Stars, but they seem to do a good job at finding people who will attract a very diverse audience. Fox News can tout their ranking as number 1, but their viewership is declining as well and their numbers are only good in comparison to CNN and MSNBC.

 

People do indeed care less and less about their local communities, which informs, to some degree, the decline in popularity and availability of local news.

Does even local news often skew progressive? IMO, yes. The pay isn't very good, so you're often (not always!) attracting the children of rich parents - who tend to have an altruistic bent to their purpose, like a social worker would - or spouses of people who do well financially. In almost all (not all!) cases you're getting someone who spent 4-6 years at a progressive-forming higher ed institution of journalism or English.

There's been major shifts, for example, in how crime is covered, and it has affected readership. The regular reader of crime news, absolutely, thinks crime is bad, thinks criminals are likely guilty, and, for the most part, thinks those criminals are responsible for getting in the jams they have. The regular cop reporter may or may not think that. Their editor is almost certainly more empathetic to the situation.

There are gaps all over the place in terms of what journalists want to do and think they should do - or in the cases of non-profits, what wealthy progressive donors want them to do - and what readers like.

And too many news orgs have turned into glorified academic departments or libraries. They're quiet. People have muted, introverted personalities. They spend too much time on social media. They're not out there, getting stories. They're at home or in the office, scrolling.

 

I agree with parts of your post — especially the decline in connection readers have to their own communities, and the failure of journalists to cover as much in person as they used to (there are some valid reasons for that, namely having not enough bodies to staff everything).

But I disagree with what you’re saying about crime coverage, especially at media outlets in smaller communities. When there’s breaking news like a fire or a shooting, reporters take every scrap of information the police release and print or broadcast it to the public, more or less verbatim.

High profile cases or movements such as Black Lives Matter get coverage because a significant portion of the community is interested or participating in them, not because of some sociology course the city editor took in college.

 

Over Thanksgiving I heard a Harry Litman podcast in which the guest basically said that Fox and X are now the mainstream media.

 

If I thought The Atlantic cared about any paper smaller than a major metro, I'd change my analysis. I'm trying to aim my thoughts at where The Atlantic's thinking is.

Major (and even some mid-major) metros are pretty progressive. They just are. I say it objectively.

 

I have the "dumb public" answer for you.

The mainstream media is whatever each mouth-breather believes it to be. Because perception is everything.

 

I used to focus-watch about 20 minutes of local news and about an hour of background news from
MSNBC daily, as well as consume the LAT and NYT daily. Since the election I’ve cold-turkey quit all of it. And I honestly feel calmer and more focused on my life.

 

My extent of it is usually 30 seconds daily at CNN.com, just to see if anything has blown up. If the main hed is below 48-point, I'm gone.