We — the traditional, the legacy, the mainstream media — have to change. - Margaret Sullivan

[Tucker] Carlson has never been a stickler for the truth, as he proved in the run-up to this interview, when he claimed that he was the only western media figure who cared enough to get [Vladimir] Putin on the record.
That's absurd. Many American reporters have tried unsuccessfully to sit down with Putin, especially since the invasion of Ukraine.
But the Russian president was waiting for the right stooge. With Carlson, he got just that.

After spending the first three decades of my career at one of Buffett’s papers, the Buffalo News, I’m not willing to accept that. Even now, my former newsroom — down by about half from its peak — is doing critically important work, not just crucial watchdog journalism (insider trading by a congressman) but cultural coverage (memories of a concert venue) that knits the community together.
Amid this nightmare financial scenario, what can be done?
[Philip] Napoli, for one, thinks that American citizens and our big thinkers need to buckle down — fast — about substantial policy changes that could involve both direct and indirect public funding for local journalism. It "would take us in a more European direction," he said.
That notion, once radioactive in journalism because it seems to threaten the independence of news organizations, must now be taken seriously.

Often it has been that reporter who has most skillfully played the access game — the one who has curried just enough favor with the powerful newsmaker to be smiled upon, without giving up basic credibility and integrity. That’s access journalism. Accountability journalism, by contrast, is often performed off to the side, by those who don’t have to deal with the news provider on a regular basis.