{"id":317,"date":"2026-04-30T08:27:18","date_gmt":"2026-04-30T01:27:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mdenisevich.com\/?page_id=317"},"modified":"2026-05-08T04:54:36","modified_gmt":"2026-05-07T21:54:36","slug":"the-stories-behind-the-stories-analyzing-on-the-media","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/mdenisevich.com\/index.php\/the-stories-behind-the-stories-analyzing-on-the-media\/","title":{"rendered":"The Stories Behind the Stories: Analyzing On the Media"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

A podcast that dives into the current and historical influence of media.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

WNYC\u2019s On the Media<\/em> is a podcast that analyzes how news is reported and the ways it influences the way we see the world. Hosted by Brooke Gladstone and Micah Loewinger, the show focuses on the \u201cmeta\u201d side of journalism: instead of just telling you the news, they analyze how other people are telling it. While the show is clearly well-researched, I\u2019d give it a 3\/4 star rating. Its constant focus on critiquing others makes its own flaws stand out even more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the Media<\/em> has a deep history, originally launching in 1993 before transitioning to its podcast form in 2001. Brooke Gladstone has been a prominent voice at the show for over twenty years, known for her ability to deconstruct complex media history. Micah Loewinger joined the podcast in 2024 but has a strong reputation for investigative reporting on digital culture, specifically how extremism and misinformation spread online. Both hosts are established journalists with the background to handle these topics and provide a balanced level of experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The goal of the podcast is to monitor the press by looking into free speech, political narratives, and media consolidation. To do this, the hosts use deep-dive interviews and historical research. For example, in \u201cThe Century-Long Capture of U.S. Media,\u201d Micah Loewinger interviews a media historian to trace how radio and newspapers shifted into an advertising-dependent business model. One of the most important pieces of information they uncovered is that this shift wasn’t an accident; it was a deliberate choice made by regulators who favored commercial interests over public ones, cemented by laws like the Communications Act of 1934.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I also really liked the coverage of the trial from the episode \u201cThe Social Media Addiction Trials Begin.\u201d It did a great job of showing how these tech giants are being held accountable for their role in the media landscape. The podcast highlights the drama of the opening arguments, specifically how a lawyer used children’s blocks to simplify the case, saying: \u201cAddicting the Brains of Children, that\u2019s the ABCs of this case\u201d (The Social Media Addiction Trials Begin, 06:49). However, the journalists didn’t really go into whether these platforms can actually be \u201cfixed\u201d through law, or if the business model itself is just fundamentally broken, and that’s something I would’ve liked to hear more about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, while the podcast includes voices from legal experts and journalists, it misses the perspective of the platform developers themselves or more parents whose children were directly affected. Hearing from the people who actually build these algorithms would have added a more complete view of the situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The show’s core argument is that media narratives shape our reality. This thesis is somewhat convincing, but this is where my main issue with the show starts. Even though they present good evidence, they have a bad habit of pushing correlation as causation. For instance, in the episode \u201cThe Century-Long Capture of U.S. Media,\u201d they point out the massive funding gap in public media. \u201c[I]t came out to about $1.59 per person per year. You compare that to the Brits, who spend close to $100 per person per year for the BBC . . . and it shows, I would argue, in the health of their democratic society\u201d (The Century-Long Capture of U.S. Media, 07:15). The podcast is stating that Britain has a healthier democratic society because of this higher funding, ignoring a million other variables why the two countries are different just to make a point about federal funding. They have this pre-set narrative and try to force the facts to fit it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This narrative focus leads to a bit of a contradiction in the show’s identity: it is supposed to be about \u201cmedia shaping our views.\u201d They aren\u2019t necessarily hypocritical regarding their donors or sponsors. They seem willing to critique anyone they find at fault. Despite that, there\u2019s this lingering feeling that they don’t always follow that unbiased model. Instead of just analyzing how a story is told, they often present their own subjective interpretations as if they were settled facts: their \u201ccause and effect\u201d logic regarding public funding. For a podcast that warns about the ways media organizations frame the truth, and in turn how people are affected by that, it seems they aren\u2019t immune to that either. They do a much better job, however.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite these criticisms, the show is impressive. The way they weave together old clips, interviews, and music makes for a very engaging listen. Using a podcast as the medium for their investigative reporting is great because it gives them time to go deep into a topic. The format allows them to explore the nuance of the First Amendment or the history of radio in a way that feels like a real education rather than just a quick news segment. You can’t do that on TV. I would recommend On the Media<\/em> if you want to see this unique take on investigative journalism, but I would come in a bit skeptical.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A podcast that dives into the current and historical influence of media. WNYC\u2019s On the Media is a podcast that analyzes how news is reported and the ways it influences\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-317","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mdenisevich.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/317","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mdenisevich.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mdenisevich.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mdenisevich.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mdenisevich.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=317"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/mdenisevich.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/317\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":351,"href":"https:\/\/mdenisevich.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/317\/revisions\/351"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mdenisevich.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=317"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}