Here’s the thing: each one of those stories contains unique information and reporting.
The headline is the result of editors assuming people only care about immigration when it’s a political issue.
And here’s the thing: more often than not THEY ARE RIGHT.
If you can get past the name, The Christian Science Monitor remains solid, if financially troubled. The Church is hands off - it’s a nonprofit foundation that has been the secret dream job of journalists for decades.
www.csmonitor.com
I don’t disagree with you, but I will be honest, it’s hard. The narratives around the border are so toxic and broken it’s hard to engage with them at all at times.
I really don’t know how we flip the script.
I don’t know how to flip the script. All I know is that things that are true and important should be widely known, and that people who pride themselves on being high-information should be held to that standard (when in practice they often get away with knowing meta-info).
Is part of the issue that there is essentially no immigration trade press - no specialist dailies that manage the minutiae so that the MSM can focus on what percolates up? Very different from (say) the tax, transportation, securities industries.
I think not quite? They do the smaller scale politics. But nobody covers every new soft-side opening, every backup of UCs because of a contract lapse, ripples created by new court of appeals decisions, weekly accounts of removal flights - the nuts and bolts of the enterprise.
Being informed used to involve reading a lot of newspaper and magazine articles. Now you can be “informed” by social media, but as you say it’s all meta-content produced by the few who do read the articles, and the rest who read the headline in the title card.
It’s really not an improvement.
