Post-Mortem Praise for The Messenger

Look, The Messenger failed. According to some reports, it failed pretty badly. But that shouldn’t be a green light for all the onlookers to pile onto its leadership, like the early 20th-century people Roosevelt criticized, or like what keyboard warriors do when MMA fighters lose, or like what much of the navel-gazing media commentariat has done to Los Angeles Times owner Soon-Shiong.

Advertisement

On the contrary, let’s remember the sort of guts it takes to do – or even to try to do – big things in a fearful, shrinking industry like modern media. Not every big endeavor is going to succeed. That was Roosevelt’s point. The Messenger was a “doer of deeds” even as the critical commentariat is cashing out. That calls for respect … or at least a viable alternative from the people so eager to kick a man while he’s down instead of work towards the changes they all say they want to see.


Ed Morrissey

I liked The Messenger as a source, but I wasn’t as enamored of it as Dustin. They were non-partisan and they did sink some significant resources into it, and they had real reporting talent such as Marc Caputo and James LaPorta, among others. But much of what they produced was the same regurgitation model that The Hill uses while snottily claiming to “report” (The Hill, not the Messenger). The way that ownership treated its employees on the way down erased whatever credit they deserved for attempting to build a better media mousetrap, in my opinion.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement