The decay of the press.

The other week I was reading Alice Dreger's "Galileo's Middle Finger," and I was quite struck by this observation that she makes towards the later part of the book.

Basically, she says that over her activist career of truth-seeking, the rise of the internet really gutted the press, and it showed in which causes of hers they picked up and how they were treated.

Basically, there weren't enough specialist staffers anymore, and when there were, they couldn't take on too long or too complex of a story, and even when they wanted to, often time an editor killed it because it'd cost too much to factcheck and in case of any lawsuits.

That totally resonated with me, with trying to get my higher ed exposes into print, as well as some of the corruption stuff on my opponent during the campaign.

It was totally a struggle, and they were obviously good stories, but it was just like a wall, where people wouldn't want to look into the details or to move it forward and there was no sense that you could get them to go and do it.

In a way, it was very affirming, to see described it in print what I've faced, and to know now one presentation of the dynamics, so I can tell other people about her take on it when I tell them about what I've done and what I've faced.

In a way, too, it makes what I've done all the more impressive (though not to brag; I don't like to do that); I really did all of that expose stuff not only when I was split so many ways, but also in an increasingly less propitious media environment.