I’ve spent fifteen years writing daily about the media business — most of it as Founding Editor of Mediaite. This site is where some of that writing lives now too.

What you’ll find here:

A daily column on media, politics, and culture, delivered to your inbox most weekday mornings. Sharp, opinionated, sometimes wrong, never boring.

Reporting and analysis you won’t read elsewhere. Cable news, the streaming and YouTube wars, the influencer-class crossover, the slow collapse of legacy news brands and what’s replacing them. I’ve spent a long time inside this business and I know where the bodies are buried.

The occasional cultural detour. I consume a lot of media — film, television, music — and when something’s worth writing about, I’ll write about it here. Not entertainment-blog stuff. The things that catch my attention and seem to mean something.

For now, everything is free. In a few weeks I’ll launch a paid tier with a weekly inside-the-business piece for subscribers — the kind of thing that’s too long, too argued, or too risky for a daily column. If you want to support independent media writing from someone who’s been doing it for a long time, that’ll be the way.

In the meantime: subscribe, forward to a friend who’d care, and hit reply with thoughts. I read everything.

Glad you’re here. Let’s get to work.

— Colby

Over the past several weeks, Donald Trump has behaved in ways that would have detonated any previous presidency.

He announced the politicization and renaming of the Kennedy Center, then claimed he knew nothing about it, despite the move bearing his unmistakable imprint. He used a Christmas Eve call-in with children to deliver rambling, hyper-partisan grievances, injecting ideological hostility into what has long been one of the presidency’s most benign rituals. He issued holiday messages attacking political opponents as “losers,” pairing performative contempt with vague threats that read less like political rhetoric than personal intimidation. He continued to lie casually about matters of public record, treating the office as a stage for grievance and spectacle rather than governance.

This is not eccentricity. It is not norm-breaking as style. It is conduct that signals contempt for institutions, abuse of power, and an almost gleeful indifference to basic standards of presidential behavior. In any previous era, much of this would have been treated as scandalous, destabilizing, or impeachable.

Instead, it has been met with something closer to a shrug.

That muted response is not the result of confusion or exhaustion. It is the product of choice.

Too many news outlets, particularly on cable, have decided that confronting Trump’s behavior clearly carries more risk than downplaying it. The risk is alienating a small but vocal audience that insists any sustained criticism proves bias. The risk is losing a shrinking centrist audience in a fragmented media market where viewers and readers are already fleeing. In that environment, softening the response feels safer than saying plainly that something is wrong.

The consequences of that decision are visible every night.

Subscribe now

MSNBC has spent years sounding alarms about Trump, often accurately. The problem now is not that the network is wrong, but that its volume has been constant for so long that it has lost authority. When every development is framed as an existential crisis, genuine emergencies struggle to break through. The coverage feels emotionally aligned with reality but strategically depleted, leaving viewers numb rather than mobilized.

Fox News has taken the opposite approach. Outside of Bret Baier’s Special Report, the network largely ignores Trump’s most erratic and authoritarian behavior. The Kennedy Center move barely registers. The Christmas Eve call is treated as a curiosity or omitted entirely. Silence protects an audience that remains deeply loyal to Trump. This is not a journalistic failure by accident. It is a business model designed to avoid upsetting the customer.

CNN sits somewhere between those poles and comes closest to fulfilling its obligation. Jake Tapper, Kaitlan Collins, Anderson Cooper, and Erin Burnett regularly challenge falsehoods and lay out facts. The problem is not accuracy. It is affect. The coverage is often couched in intellectual discourse, legal hypotheticals, and procedural analysis that drains events of their urgency. The tone signals seriousness while avoiding the emotional clarity to say that this behavior is unacceptable and dangerous.

Taken together, these approaches normalize the abnormal.

This softening is reinforced by cues from the political right. Republican leaders who once claimed to care about constitutional limits have abandoned even symbolic resistance. Attacks on cultural institutions, flirtations with executive overreach, and open contempt for democratic norms are met with silence or ritual deflection. The posture is defeatism dressed up as realism. Nothing can be done. Nothing is worth reacting to. Move on.

That posture has bled into coverage.

When elected officials refuse to react as if conduct is dangerous, the press follows suit. Alarm is recast as hysteria. Judgment is treated as partisanship. Editors lower the temperature not because the facts demand calm, but because outrage has been redefined as unprofessional.

This is how standards collapse.

The press has learned useful lessons about not amplifying Trump’s provocations. That work matters. Shrinking the spectacle matters. What does not follow is shrinking the criticism. Avoiding the circus does not absolve journalists of the responsibility to say when behavior crosses clear lines.

The greater risk is not losing viewers who cry bias at any scrutiny. It is normalizing conduct that would have ended any other presidency. History does not judge media institutions for audience churn. It judges them for failing to name danger when it is obvious.

Trump is not operating in gray areas. He is lying openly, abusing institutions, and using the presidency as a vehicle for personal grievance and intimidation. This does not require interpretation. It requires recognition.

If the press cannot clearly say that this behavior is unacceptable, then the problem is no longer Donald Trump. It is the standards being quietly abandoned around him.