"People shouldn't expect the mass media to do investigative stories. That job belongs to the 'fringe' media"

Ted Koppel points to a divide between mainstream and alternative journalism, highlighting a crucial dynamic in the world of media. Large mass media organizations, with their vast audiences and corporate interests, often prioritize coverage that aligns with popular demand and maintains advertiser relationships. Their resources may be significant, but their capacity or motivation to pursue stories that challenge powerful institutions, expose secrets, or question authority can be hindered by risk aversion, bureaucracy, and commercial pressures. The expectations of neutrality, objectivity, and broad appeal frequently steer coverage toward consensus issues or established narratives.

By contrast, fringe media, whether independent journalists, small presses, or unconventional publications, operate outside the central flow of major news outlets. It is often these marginal or alternative voices that venture into controversial or risky investigative work, unearthing stories that might otherwise remain untold. Unencumbered by many of the constraints facing larger organizations, they have greater freedom to pursue leads that might not have mass appeal or that could potentially offend influential advertisers or government sources. Fringe media can serve as laboratories for innovation in reporting methods or storytelling styles, often relying on grassroots support or niche audiences that encourage boldness and persistence.

Koppel’s observation underscores a pragmatic reality: expecting sustained, adversarial investigative journalism from large, mainstream outlets is unrealistic given their institutional circumstances. Instead, it is the outsiders, the dedicated and sometimes eccentric figures on the periphery of the media landscape, who assume the role of watchdogs in society. Their investigations can eventually influence the mass media, as groundbreaking stories from the fringes sometimes force their way into the mainstream and shape public discourse. Ultimately, the health of a democracy may depend on the vitality of these fringe voices, as they push boundaries, question accepted truths, and remind the public not to rely solely on the comfortable consensus of mass communication.