The Intrinsic Problems of The Press

There are too many built-in conflicts for the press to be honest.

The last two weeks have been enlightening. The world waited, with some trepidation, for the decision by President Trump about joining Israel in its ongoing struggle with Iran. It was a tug-of-war between the peace contingency of the Republican Party and those who are left from the neocon wing of the old George W. Bush coalition. President Trump found himself at odds with people like Tucker Carlson and his reluctant libertarian supporters like Dave Smith. Mark Levin and the old guard from the AM radio days were back in the fold and living boldly because of it. The “Podcast Bros,” as they affectionately became known during these last few months of build-up, were accused of being isolationists and antisemites as they asked about the United States’ role in the Israel-Iran fight. There were clear supporters of the conflict, too. Laura Loomer and Mark Levin were suddenly in the Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz camp. All of the anti-war rhetoric that seemed to carry President Trump to a historic win in the fall was drowned out by the wind-up-top of vitriol that came screaming from the microphones of Mr. Levin and Ms. Loomer. It put a coalition filled with diverse ideas and political backgrounds into shaky territory, where the entire thing seemed like it might be quickly coming apart at the seams. It felt really difficult to watch. I was admittedly frustrated by the march to war. While I was not interested in seeing Iran obtain a nuclear weapon, I also have felt very misled in my lifetime by the Washington wizards of smart, who have taken our beleaguered nation into war, after war. My distrust of the entire system is always on high alert. Good people can lie just as easily as those whom I find less favorable. The pressures to maintain a post or a profit line, or an ideology, are really great, especially in a system overripe with power. So, as the entire drama played out on X and Instagram, it became evident that the political expediency of siding with “a team” was greater than discussing the merits of the issue. Saying things about politics gets you cancelled or scorned, and it can also elevate your status. What played out over the last few weeks was a textbook case of all of it. It showcased why American media is as bad as it is, and why, no matter who it is, the press desperately needs a counterbalance to itself.

There are no bias-free people, and I have always thought of that line by the press as a falsity and a tree to hide behind that enables access to powerful people. No one comes to the political space to write or opine without a belief in a way of operating and a sense of how they think the government should function. To say otherwise is disingenuous. I think when reporters or media personalities try to hide behind some kind of erudite illusion that they are impartial, they do their readers a giant disservice. I would prefer to know where people are coming from before I get to hear their stance on any particular issue. It feels much more honest and gives context to what they write about. In the case of American media, what we have witnessed since the rise of cable news is an incessant hyperventilating about media bias, all the while embracing our own organs of propaganda that justify our personal sensibilities. When I was a younger man, I wanted to watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh because they confirmed my biases. I believed we needed to stop terrorism and encourage regime change of anything that didn’t look like Jesse Duke, all around the world. Fox News and Mr. Limbaugh helped me justify that thinking. I had no interest in reading Rolling Stone or Mother Jones to hear about dissenting opinions about the wars. Deeper than my own confirmation biases was my distrust of those mainstream media outlets because of their political motives. There wasn’t an article you could read in which George W. Bush wasn’t Satan himself. After the debacle of the 2000 election, I was uninterested in hearing from media sources about how evil George Bush was. He was the person I voted for, and dissenting opinions about him were clearly about political victories rather than a confrontation of power. It’s a nuanced difference, but when the New York Times would say they were just presenting unbiased facts about what was happening in the war, I would refuse to believe them because their desire to see the Bush presidency undone was worn on their sleeves like black arm bands at a funeral. I stopped believing anything they had to say, not because of their facts, but because of their veiled motives.

I think that is where most of the American people are, too. Any of the latest events in our world, from COVID to George Floyd to the War in Iran, are all events that, despite real evidence or logical conversations about motives, are all places where the press failed to effectively communicate with the populace about what was happening. COVID was clearly motivated by a government narrative that forced people in the press to stop asking questions about any of the protocols the government recommended or mandated. Any dissenting voice was dismissed. People with legitimate questions, qualifications, and platforms were all treated as pariahs, and the mainstream media was a willing accomplice in all of the cover-ups that the government required to keep the message intact. George Floyd died of a heart attack and with an excessive amount of drugs in his system, yet the entire media apparatus was in agreement that any voice that asked the questions about what really happened was to be silenced and ridiculed. Over and over again, the media pretends as if their biases are pure and that events like riots in Minneapolis are not really riots, or Ivermectin is a horse dewormer because that doesn’t advance their political ideologies. Hiding what they want to see as an outcome gives them a sense of righteousness that allows them to say whatever they want as long as their goals are accomplished.

Throw in the money that media companies make from the mercantile interests of pharmaceutical companies or the defense industry, and the entire media apparatus is shown for what it really is: a powerful tool for advancing political ideologies.

So, last week, when we arrived at the doorstep of nuclear war, and people took their stances about what would be the best path for the American empire, it was no surprise that the media began its typical calliope song. This distrust has built a two-path system of media where supposedly there is the mainstream version and the alternative one. The mainstream plays a one-note samba of Trump hatred, so all things that he does are to be questioned and demonized. Good moves or bad, Trump must be defeated by their noble intentions. MSNBC and CNN ask silly questions, draped in a dripping smugness to demonstrate how stupid the president is, and how elevated those who oppose him are. Their questioning isn’t about speaking truth to power; it is about making sure that their ideological motivations are served. Washington, in their minds, only works if the apparatus is left alone: the money flows, and the cocktail parties are fabulous. When the bumpkins show up, thinking that they want a government to be responsive to their needs or citizen driven agendas, the eye rolls and disgust is palpable. They could never understand the “nuances” of such a large government. USAID is necessary for the system to work, and government waste is part of the deal we make in order to preserve safety and stability. The rednecks and ruffians are too stupid to get it.

Rightfully so, the clodhoppers hate the media for their condescending treatment and elitism. So in the last decade, those rednecks and ruffians have increasingly turned to other media avenues. At first, it was Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, but in an accelerated fashion, there is now a long list of “new media” outlets that people indulge in to get their information. This new wild west version of the press is a much better version than the one that was previously looked to by the people for their information. Citizen journalists do a much better job of capturing the real stories that are impacting their towns, main streets, and neighbors than the corporate press does of doing anything meaningful in that space. Things that would never be covered or discussed are brought to the attention of millions through outlets like X or Rumble, and it is being consumed at a breakneck pace. Accuracy and vetting are certainly victims of this rush to disclose the scoop, but if anyone has the integrity to say it out loud, the old press was equally as bad at rushing stories to the public. This new version of the press has a ferocity to itself that is really healthy. People have to work very hard to get themselves into a position of visibility, and the knives are always out for those who get some traction.

Making money by writing is really, really hard. People underestimate how much effort and practice it takes to get good enough at communicating that people will part with their money to support the effort. It is a fine balance of free and paid content, social media captivation, and truly great writing or communication that enables someone to achieve success. Get any of those things out of balance, and the wheels come off the bus fast. Podcasters who try to write because their manager said they should, fail miserably. Writers who try to podcast fail just the same. Social media carnival barkers find themselves crashing hard when they get something wrong, and those who just want to pursue money by writing never build an audience. It’s complex, and it takes a very sophisticated, business-building mind to make it through the gauntlet.

Any good version of the press requires access to those in power, too. Something the new media has been locked out of until this version of the Trump administration. Without the chance to talk to people “in the know,” everything is limited to speculation. The new media is filled with that. Opinions and speculation formed without access to good sources run flat over time. The paragraphs all start to sound the same, and the story is limited to the intellectual boundaries of the writer. But access comes at a cost. Politicians don’t like to be embarrassed or called out, typically, so they use their access card as a way to get favorable narratives advanced. The new media is especially vulnerable in this area. Having been locked out of the conversations for so long, they don’t want to upset the apple cart. They need access in order to provide the great content to generate in order to continue to make money. If that wheel is taken away, their content disappoints their readership, and they falter.

Certainly, there are a few examples like Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson who can transcend the need for big social media presences and whose content is so consumed that it is the politician who needs them more than Rogan or Carlson needs the politician for their success, but they are the anomaly, not the norm. Even big names with huge followings need to keep their relationships healthy enough not to lose access to the politicians. That creates a double-edged sword for any attempt at creating an honest press.

Say something bad about a politician and lose access to them. The financial strain that loss could create is often too great for someone wanting to be in the media space. With no massive corporate engine behind them like a CBS or a Fox News, their tightrope walk can have significant consequences. So the line gets finely walked, and the new media personality does a dance between their convictions and their livelihood. No one is immune to it either. Even someone as prominent as Tucker Carlson feels the wrath of crossing the line and betraying the politicians. When he started speaking out about the drum beats of war with Iran, his reputation amongst his listeners suffered, and his access will inevitably be limited despite his audience size. No politician who watches the Ted Cruz interview will ever consent to that kind of situation ever again, and Tucker will be limited to B-level guests for a long time, if not forever. Tucker will likely be fine, and he seems to have no interest any longer in the fame and position his younger, more ambitious self did, but make no mistake, his show and content will have consequences for his “betrayal” of the agenda.

I wrote a piece for House InHabit last week about the war and tried to break it down as well as I could. I knew at the time it would be a failure, and that it would make people frustrated and angry that I was not going along with the government's position about it. The comments were pretty vicious. I was an anti-semite, a nazi, a jew hater, all because I tried to tackle the conversation. I apologized to Jessica for costing her subscribers and doing what appeared to be damage to her audience. She quickly responded that it hadn’t, and she wouldn’t be where she is if she had written material to keep herself in the good graces of both her audience and her subjects. It was a giant relief to hear it. I was very appreciative that she was willing to stand by what I wrote. It may not be anywhere near her own opinions about the war or Israel, but she was brave enough to put it out in front of her readers. That is unique in this new landscape of media. Not everyone has the same convictions.

I watched last week as Conservative media influencers gymnastizied their way through what appeared to be looking like another Middle Eastern malaise. Six months ago, when being anti-war was the “new cool” thing to be, blasting foreign escapades and warmongers like Liz Cheney was en vogue. I had never seen George Washington’s farewell address so often memed and pushed out on X as I did leading up to the election. Yet as the tensions built and Israel made its move, the new media tried to figure out how to balance what felt incongruous to their stance six months ago, with remaining America First! in this moment. People with what seem like deep convictions, like Charlie Kirk, put out polls that showed 90% of his followers were uninterested in another foreign war, and then slowly as the situation changed to a more hawkish moment, moved his positions to more align with the government and posted a question about, if the people of Iran worked toward regime change, would his followers support it? In less than 48 hours, Kirk had gone from a “no new wars” guy to someone who could be counted on as an ally of President Trump’s decision.

That coveted access is a very heavy pair of golden handcuffs. Those who have it live with the tension of losing it and the consequences of that every time they hit the post button. Will this be the post or the paragraph that costs me my audience and my Audi? Even if they are able to bury that tension, the wrestling match has an eroding effect on their confidence. Those lessons are easy to theorize about, but they become real in moments like last week. This new landscape, where people are paid for their individualized performances, makes for a field full of landmines that prevent a truly honest press.

If one also considers the personal consequences that come from speaking out in a manner contrary to the mainline way of thinking, the conviction to stay honest and wade into controversy can be easily abandoned. Online bullying and bashing are real, and it isn’t just for teenagers. Sniper style, keyboard warriors can inflict copious amounts of damage to the psyche of anyone. The dopamine fix that shooting arrows from behind a handle or through an app gives is so great that people who want to have an honest discussion about politics are shamed and scared into avoiding the topic altogether. Vicious discussions and name-calling are the norms of the new media landscape. It’s why most online content is left to interns and autobots. The blowback is too hurtful and becomes personal. A quick perusal through past posts of mine during the campaign, or screenshots of influencers who share the comments of their followers, shows just how cruel the public eye can be. Yes, we may have chosen to wade into the topic, but holding an opinion rarely gives credence to hate-filled rants and rages that online followers can engage in. I have nearly stopped my interactions on X. The content is too angry, and the siloed opinions of online warriors aren’t advancing the conversations.

Add up all of these challenges together, and the threading of the honest media needle becomes nearly impossible. When you then place an overarching reality of competition for attention, being honest in the media seems overwhelmingly against the odds. The long knives are out for anyone who has achieved the navigation of the stormy waters. Any slip-up brings out the sharks who are on the outside looking in.

Take, for instance, Laura Loomer or Candace Owens. Both have significant followings on their social media platforms. Both have an understanding of how to make a living in media. Both have no access to the people they really want to talk to, that would, in their minds, catapult their content into a new arena of “must-see TV.” When the drums got louder and the voices of dissent started to fly against the current president’s decisions, both of the aforementioned parties saw an opening to get what they were after. Loomer viewed her alignment with the president and Israel as her chance to get back into the good graces of the White House. She thinks of herself as someone uber loyal to Trump and, rightly or delusionally, sees herself as instrumental to the MAGA movement. This fissure that the conflict in the Middle East created between the MAHA’s and the MAGA’s was just what she wanted. She has despised Robert Kennedy from the beginning. She has seen him as an infiltrator and rogue agent who is a plant to destroy the MAGA movement and run for president after this term is over.

Here is just one example of her concept about a Kennedy infiltration. In a post she put out on June 20th, she says: “There’s a new op running inside MAGA, led by the same RFK Jr. supporters who tried to sabotage President Trump’s campaign with a contingent election scheme. Their new schtick is to falsely accuse President Trump of being PRO WAR. Now Tulsi Gabbard is pushing rogue, provocative and inflammatory foreign policy videos featuring nuclear explosions without approval from President Trump, his advisors, or US national security officials amid a conflict that surrounds Iran’s nuclear capabilities and threats. According to my sources, the White House was furious about the nuclear war video she posted and summoned her to the Oval Office. This is what happens when you let Democrats who have a long history of attacking President Trump’s foreign policy infiltrate our movement with no boundaries or guard rails whatsoever. People are not staying in their lane, and it’s incredibly dangerous for our country for the President to be receiving tainted intel about Iran. Donald Trump knows Iran has what it takes to make a nuclear weapon. This is why he said Iran must never have access to a nuclear weapon.”

Reading through this discussion, you can see the underlying hope of Ms. Loomer: to get on the side of Trump and gain precious access back. Her advocacy for herself as the standard bearer for MAGA is her way of letting everyone know that she’s the genuine article, and everyone else is an infiltrator. Her hatred of Kennedy doesn’t stop just with him or former Democrats that are now in the tent; she’s taken on influencers like Jessica. Here she is from a May 29 post this year:

“When the Robert Kennedy Jr. stuff drops, just remember who was the first person to warn the Trump admin about Jessica Reed Kraus secretly collecting information on Kennedy, his wife, and members of the Trump family, including secretly filming Donald Jr.’s own kids.”

Loomer saw the war and the possible divide with the Kennedy people as her chance to reclaim what she believes is her spot. She seems livid that people like Ms. Kraus are on the inside, and she’s not on “the team.” Even if one is able to suspend belief that Loomer isn’t a total nutcase and saw her as someone who is a true believer in the MAGA agenda, it is hard to get past the underlying sentiments from her posts that she seems desperate to gain access to the scuttlebutt of what is happening within the administration. Her insinuations that people like Ms. Kraus or Tucker Carlson are strictly motivated by money are laughable when contrasted against the posts she puts out that reek of what gain might be possible if she were to be put back in what she sees as her rightful place in the orbit of Trump.

And then there is Candace Owens, who made an equally calculated decision to throw in with the Anti-war crowd and disparage the President and his decisions. While I might have more inclinations towards Ms. Owens’ take on the war, her transparency about what she is after was no less obvious than Ms. Loomer’s. Before October 7, 2023, Candace Owens was a fixture at the Daily Wire: Ben Shapiro and Jeremy Boreing’s attempt at competing with mainstream media with conservative influencers like Matt Walsh, Jordan Peterson, and, prior to the eruption of the conflict in Gaza, Ms. Owens. She was a star in their world and developed a real following of fans. When she started to attack Israel for its response to the attacks on October 7, her bosses terminated her contract and sent her packing. It wasn’t surprising, but it certainly changed the pathway of her career. Whether motivated by real convictions or scorn from being dismissed for her statements, Owens found herself on the outside looking in, trying to build her own brand and platform.

As I have said previously, making money in media is hard. Regardless of whether Ms. Owens truly holds her beliefs that Israel is as detrimental to the pursuit of peace as she claims, or if the position helps her attract her own kind of following that believes in her claims, the die is cast about how she is going to navigate her way through the new media landscape. She has been embraced by the libertarian leaning version of MAGA and holds court with those who think that Israel is the root of all of the problems globally. The more she was embraced, the more she doubled down on her statements about the Jewish people and Israel. It painted her in a corner, in my opinion, and she had to stay in that lane no matter what evidence was presented. Even after President Trump claimed a ceasefire, her only reaction was to go after Prime Minister Netanyahu for not adhering to the deal. When Trump allowed his frustrations with the situation to boil over in front of the press and drop his infamous F-Bomb, Owens was quick to celebrate it as a bashing of Israel.

So, what does all of this discussion about Candace Owens and Laura Loomer have to do with honest media? Almost everything. These two are just examples of what the new media landscape looks like. Each person is an entity unto itself, competing for audience share and the attention of the people who pay attention to politics. Any avenue that helps gain footing, followers, or fame is worth the pursuit. I prefer this method for obtaining the truth, but it makes for a very dicey situation as consumers. Americans have to be retrained entirely to understand what it is they are taking in. For so long, we have been told that if it is in the media, it has truth to it, it has been vetted, and can be trusted. We have taken our old three-channel habits into the wilderness of new media and are surprised that people have motivations other than unbiased reporting. We should have understood that the past iteration was no less motivated by audience share and advertiser money, but our belief in the unbiased has created a very unsettled media world. If we can’t see my bias, or Ms. Owens', or Ms. Loomer’s, then we are prone to believe anything that shows itself on X or Instagram or Rumble.

The illusion of an honest media is just that: an illusion.

I think the long-range outcome of it will be better than what we have had, and I think the citizen, if given the proper understanding that bias is built in to every form of media, will be able to synthesize the elements of truth from each person that presents and get to a closer proximity of what is real, honest and trustworthy. If someone finds some element of honesty in Laura Loomer’s reporting, they can balance that against her disclosed motivations and come to a more realistic understanding of the issues she might be discussing. Others who find her unsettled and inaccurate can move along from her reporting and find other sources that might clarify the news about any given issue with less anger and conspiratorial whirlwinds. The marketplace of ideas should be robust and rigorous, and it shouldn’t be a controlled version of the story. We have lived that, and the consequences were divisive and filled with troubles. The wider the spectrum of biases, the better chance we have to get at the truth. Those who stick their necks out to write and disclose what the powerful are doing all have their own motivations. They will be economic, status-driven, and embossed with their own political agendas, and we as consumers of media should be willing to embrace those motivations and frame the conversations. The news and how it has been presented have been a lazy-minded endeavor. No one source has the corner on how a story will actually play out, and since for the last 60 years we have lived as if it did, is why our culture and country have a limited capacity for political discourse.

Can the media be honest?

No.

Does it need to be? Not if the citizens understand how to consume it.