Stephen Staley: Escaping the media echosystem

“Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.” – Alexandr Solzehnitsyn

If you spent the last couple of months reading tea leaves in an effort to predict the outcome of the U.S. election, how close did your prediction hew to what came to pass?

It’s likely the answer to that question provides a hint into where you look to find trustworthy sources of information—a subject that has become a dominant one in the wake of Donald Trump sweeping all seven swing states and returning to the presidency of the United States.

Monocausal explanations are exhausting because their simplicity airbrushes over a complex truth, yet sometimes even single ideas are meaningful enough to merit discrete examination.

Over the past several years, a few big trends have come to define the media and information landscapes in the West.

First, legacy media has been battered by a combined force of failing business models, fragmentation, and an erosion of trust.

Second, these factors have led to the rise of new sources of information vying for the time and attention of voters across the West. In the internet age, user attention and demand have become the only contingent variables. From podcasts to social media, there have never been more outlets available for voters to find news and information.

Third, faced with an erosion of trust and a belief that many of their new media competitors and political opponents present a real and present danger, legacy media have leaned even harder into partisanship, defending with ever-more ferocity an ever-smaller range of acceptable views, which is accelerating their downward spiral of trust.

Fourth, and most recently, as a result of all of these trends, the legacy media, even when it full-throatedly and in near unanimity advocates for a particular point of view, has lost its power to sway broad public opinion.

Despite these trends, and by deploying the label of “misinformation” and hilarious (terrifying?) supplemental terms like “mis-, dis- and malinformation” (true information that is unhelpful to the prevailing narrative—this is a real thing supposedly serious people talk about) much of the legacy news media has chosen to double down, trudging further down a path towards the abyss. Far too often it selects, shapes, or ignores stories based primarily on how it will impact the Noble Goal that it seeks.

I think it’s right to question the principles and ethics behind this approach. But even if one grants some dishonest means are justified in pursuit of supposedly righteous ends, the lesson of the last couple of weeks must reach one clear conclusion: that tactic does not work.

Political activism masquerading as journalism does not persuade and arguably serves to dissuade readers from the outcomes so desperately sought by our old media evangelists.

The decline of trust in traditional media

Sadly, in the wake of the U.S. election, many legacy media players and commentators seem determined to learn the wrong lessons. If you have the stomach to sit through political panels on major news networks (don’t do this) you would hear calls for “regulating social media platforms” or “doing more to combat misinformation” which may sound innocuous, but truthfully just sounds an awful lot like a full-frontal assault on the entire notion of free speech.

I would humbly suggest the best way to combat this nebulous yet ominous misinformation, whatever one believes that to be, is to tell the truth.

In the weeks and months leading up to the first presidential debate, if you consumed only legacy media, chances are you wouldn’t have seen many examples of President Biden’s obvious decline. To the extent you did, it probably would have been through the prism of a story about how misinformation was circulating on social media, dishonestly trying to “take something out of context” and claim things were amiss with Biden when he was obviously fine. He was, of course, obviously not fine. Do you know who knew that? Well, apparently the 86 percent of Americans who believed he was too old to run again.

This belief took hold in spite of the legacy media choosing to ignore the alarming and mounting evidence, as social media platforms like X and Instagram exploded with videos documenting reality. Meanwhile, in group chats with friends and family, the clear evidence circulated widely, showing Biden trailing off mid-sentence or wandering aimlessly yet gingerly or calling on a dead woman to be acknowledged at a White House event (“Where’s Jackie?”).

So when the legacy media, in partnership with the White House, helped to coin the term “cheap fake” (which apparently refers to videos that are real but unhelpful), many journalists sacrificed their credibility on the altar of an obvious lie.

They argued that what the majority of Americans saw with their own eyes was not only false but wherever they gleaned that information was a reckless source of misinformation. This project in credibility destruction was perhaps most hilariously exemplified by MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough who claimed with righteous vigour in March of this year (“I’m about to tell you the truth, and eff you if you don’t believe me”) that not only was Biden “cogent,” but in fact “this version of Joe Biden is the best Biden ever.”

Scarborough’s comment is notable for more than the fantastic lie that it conveys. His tone reflects hostility and contempt for anyone who does not adhere to his obviously false claim, which is a number that only grew over time. Remember again that his “eff you” was essentially directed at 86 percent of Americans. Condescending to the vast majority of the public (while also lying to them) seems like a remarkably foolish way to swing public opinion in your favour.

That these are the same people who are also the leading advocates of regulating speech online or combatting “misinformation” would be comical if it weren’t so concerning.

Again, you may believe the threat of Trump was so dangerous that modest self-censorship or torquing up otherwise innocuous stories is justified to ensure he would not be permitted to return to the White House. And also again, if that’s the calculus being made, the strategy employed to achieve it is bankrupt. It does not and will not work.^{1There is no shortage of additional examples along these lines. In the past several weeks alone, a New York Times “fact check” headline (pre-election) decried the “false claim” that FEMA had neglected areas that voted Republican in its disaster relief efforts, before being forced to report (post-election) that FEMA had fired an employee for doing exactly that.}

It’s worth reiterating that this story was incorrectly “fact-checked” by probably the most influential news organization in the world, and it was only after irrefutable evidence to the contrary was surfaced (by the conservative outlet, the Daily Wire) that the legacy media was forced to acknowledge it.

None of this is an argument to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional journalism is a worthy pursuit, and deeply reported stories are essential. We should also acknowledge the kernel of truth from our misinformation warriors. Social media is full of nonsense. It’s full of hucksters, scams, lies, half-lies. It is also full of lots and lots of useful and true information. Finding the signal amidst that noise is not always straightforward, and lots of people fall victim to some of the nonsense.

What’s become increasingly clear, however, is that trying to find the signal in the noise is not a challenge confined to social media or online platforms—it’s a challenge for those consuming legacy media as well.

If you care about the declining trust in traditional journalism, this trend of attempting to prioritize a political outcome by steamrolling over the truth should concern you. Perhaps if the media had been more honest about Biden’s condition earlier (his “where’s Jackie” moment occurred two years ago) a stronger candidate could have been selected, through a proper process and with more time. We’ll never know, partially because the truth of Biden’s decline was protected by a bodyguard of lies.^{2Lest you think that hyperbole, I encourage readers to browse online for the furious response from an astonishing number of media outlets to the Wall Street Journal’s June story reporting that the president was “slipping.”}

As the omerta around Biden’s condition was ruthlessly enforced in many publications, the millions of Americans who were concerned by what they were seeing were forced to turn to new outlets to find an honest discussion about reality.

The rise of new media

The podcast revolution is one of the most meaningful developments in the media and information landscape in the modern era. A digital Gutenberg revolution, it offers a new way of democratizing, publishing, and disseminating information.

Unlike reading, podcasts give listeners the opportunity to consume interesting conversations in long form and with found time—while walking or commuting to work or the store, while exercising your dog or waiting to board a plane, etc.  Now, anyone can listen to a deep and thoughtful discussion and debate on anything from climate science to sports to history with time that used to be spent listening to a bad radio DJ or the ambient street sounds of sirens and traffic.

The number of people who consume podcasts is enormous—and growing. Now, there are good podcasts and bad podcasts. Some are funny, some are informative. Many are biased, and many more traffic in complete nonsense. This comes up, of course, because the popularity and consumption of podcasts has become another front in the war on (mis)information being waged by many in our gilded classes.

Take the biggest podcaster in the world: Joe Rogan.

Rogan is a nice guy. He isn’t particularly partisan or combative in his approach. What he is is curious. He likes talking to interesting people and he actually listens to them as they explain their views. His podcast is largely filled with MMA or comedy-related guests, as those are two of his passions, but he’s also into an eclectic range of other topics, including politics, culture, science, new health fads, conspiracy theories, and of course, aliens, which leads him to have on Area 51 enthusiasts or former fighter pilots who have filmed weird things in the sky. Not my bag, but whatever. Most importantly, he is also vigorously and passionately in favour of free speech.

Most people I know who listen to him at all, listen to his podcast once or twice a month when a particular guest piques their interest. The reason they listen is because if his guest is at all interesting to you, Rogan’s casual style, usually spread out over three or so hours, provides a fascinating insight into the guest and their views. Sure, he presents as a bit of a meathead, but, crucially, he doesn’t prosecute a case against his guests, set traps, or push a dogmatic agenda, he is kind and he just talks and listens. Those who eavesdrop in get a pretty good understanding of his guests’ perspective and are left to make their own judgements about the claims and views they hear.^{3If the anecdote makes the point, one of my favourite episodes was when he interviewed Jordan Jonas, a virtually unknown man who won an incredibly difficult season of the TV show “Alone” by surviving in the Canadian Arctic for 77 days, and whose backstory involves herding reindeer in Siberia and riding the rails as a young man, across the United States.}

Why does this matter? Well, because in addition to his podcast being among the biggest on earth, it’s also been a consistent target of histrionic attacks from many in traditional media. If a virtually unknown columnist or TV pundit goes on a rant against the dangers of Rogan and the misinformation he spreads, there are tens of millions of people out there who hear that and know immediately that the person making the claim is either ignorant or malicious or both. They’re telling on themselves.

This is true far more broadly.

Attacking the growing number of well-liked and well-listened-to podcasters is a recipe for tearing down your own reputation, not theirs. And yet, under the illusion that the prevailing narrative of our societal trends can be defined by them alone, despite declining audiences and even more rapidly declining trust, the legacy media continue to lash out at not just Rogan but nearly all of these new mediums and platforms and those who find success on them. All of which, I remind readers, only matter because millions of people choose to listen to them regularly.

I would argue that the primary throughline of most successful podcasts is that they are interesting, funny, or both. It shouldn’t be a shock that most people prefer to be entertained than scolded, and yet the latter is the tactic employed most frequently by many in the legacy press when they observe a viewpoint, thinker, writer, or podcaster with whom they disagree.

While podcasts have become a dominant form of media in this new information landscape, there are also countless new media and journalistic platforms rising in popularity. From The Hub to The Dispatch, the Free Press to Crooked Media, they are often partisan but honest about their perspectives, prioritizing transparency and eschewing sanctimony.

There’s an additional point worth making that demonstrates a significant contrast between new media and old.

As legacy media has become more strident in its advocacy, it has also simultaneously become more ruthlessly militant in enforcing an ever narrower range of acceptable opinions. More and more, views that align with a majority of Western voters are unspeakable in many publications. The New York Times fired a senior editor for “platforming” a sitting U.S. senator (no such recriminations took place when they similarly platformed the deputy leader of the Taliban). Bari Weiss, a Clintonian Democrat if there ever was one, has built the remarkably successful Free Press after being chased out of the New York Times. On CNN a few days ago, a panelist descended into a hysterical and self-righteous rant that he “would not listen” to another panelist’s mainstream view on the transgender issue. I have tough news for the conventional dogma hall monitors: plugging your ears and refusing to listen to widely held opinions doesn’t actually make them go away.

In recent days there have been calls among Democrats to “create our own Joe Rogan” which of course ignores the fact that Rogan leans Left on nearly every social issue and endorsed Bernie Sanders the last time around. That was, of course, before much of the media and establishment class rose up to attempt to cancel him because his views on COVID fell outside the catechisms of the establishment.

This rigid enforcement of a weird, new, niche orthodoxy has become self-reinforcing, as only those whose views align with the shibboleths of the elite urban Left are drawn to or able to be employed by much of the legacy press. There are many downsides to the rigid and shrinking walls of the elite media “echosystem,” but perhaps the most significant is this: you do not win hearts and minds by telling voters they are stupid, wrong, or bad, or by pretending like their concerns are irrelevant or unspeakable. Instead, you drive them to the very same new media platforms and players you’re trying (and failing) to compete with.

As CNN’s Van Jones said a couple weeks before the election “If you’re chasing people out of the party, you can’t be mad when they leave.”

The rise of new media platforms has clearly transformed the information landscape, and perhaps more importantly they demonstrate a serious market demand for exactly what traditional media used to offer. Informed commentary, respect for consumers, the odd dash of entertainment. All of these are consistent flavours of a new and successful business model that is attracting sufficient viewers and subscribers to not only survive but flourish.

The lesson that the new media players have learned, and so many in traditional media refuse to, is that in the internet age, there is no marginal distribution cost. Anyone can write anything and publish it with global reach. The only limiting factor is consumer demand. And consumers are demonstrating they have a demand for honest reporting and commentary that reflects reality as they see it, without smug condescension or outright hostility.

Finding the signal in the social media noise

I wince as I write this, but ok fine, let’s talk about social media,—particularly X.

Even those who regularly use the platform formerly known as Twitter love to hate it. It’s true, X is full of hucksters, scams, and lies. So is the world around us. But X is also full of useful and true information. If there is a major event going on in the world, it remains unmatched in its ability to deliver large quantities of information from all sides, in real-time. The addition of community notes, which allows for crowd-sourced fact-checking, in the open for all to see, is a meaningful addition from the Musk era.

At its best, X is a platform that you can use to curate sources of news, from both traditional players and new ones, while at its worst it is a cesspool of lies. This makes it increasingly important to read everything with skepticism, regardless of where it comes from.

The key point is that telling the truth is essential for building trust, especially for those in the information business. Dishonesty about just the small things, even if merely through omission and in pursuit of a righteous aim, simply leads more people to tune you out and turn to sources who at least acknowledge the reality they see.

Mainstream criticisms of social media as a cesspit of misinformation miss the point—social media platforms are that, but only because they are a roiling pit of information writ large. They simply provide expression to vast amounts of crowdsourced points of data inputted from every source imaginable in the world. There are as many helpful and useful and interesting things to be shared and learned—at scale and at hyperspeed—as there are unhelpful and useless things.

It is the continual emergence of these important and true things that surface to disprove the useful fictions promulgated by those in power that prove social media’s utility. It’s no wonder that narrative control is lost in the face of that, and it’s no wonder the mainstream outlets are threatened by it.

Overall, social media is a powerful force, and, like all powerful forces, its worth depends on its use. We should be empowering users to be more discerning and honest in their engagement with it, not scolding them with “Daddy knows best” rhetoric or attempting to control the conversation through algorithmic manipulation.

What next?

The late author Michael Chrichton coined a term called the “Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect” which describes a phenomenon where a person reads or hears news coverage on a topic they know well and realizes the coverage is inaccurate, biased, or misinformed, yet goes on to believe news coverage on other topics is accurate, unbiased, and informed. It’s a phenomenon I’ve discussed at length for years before I knew a term existed to describe it.

The world is complicated. Our fragmented information landscape perhaps makes that complexity more pronounced, but also presents the opportunity to observe and consume an unprecedented abundance of useful information to provide structure to that complexity. We must accept the world is messy and nuanced, and seek to cut through the simple narratives and motive attribution so often found in legacy media, as well as the grifters and scammers on social platforms. Readers who deploy discernment and skepticism while reading and listening widely have never had more options for creating a more comprehensive picture of the world around us.

Speaking of skepticism, readers should be deeply skeptical of any argument calling for the curtailing of your right and ability to read and consume any content you choose. The pursuit of truth should be the goal you seek when you dive into any publication, from a New York Times column to a niche podcast, and any entity who seeks to wield state control to narrow the universe of acceptable views is engaging in an exercise that is antithetical to one of the core principles of liberal democracy. Engage and challenge bad ideas, by all means, and with vigour, but don’t allow new gatekeepers to be erected between you and the truth.

As I’ve argued before, you would be hard-pressed to find a public policy issue that doesn’t have an experienced expert or academic arguing vigorously on both sides. Complex, multi-faceted arguments can rarely be won by an appeal to authority, and in a world of abundant content, trying to do so is a fool’s errand.

Instead, as had been the conventional view in the Western world until five minutes ago, the best way to get to the truth in societies that value free speech is more speech and more debate. Strongly opinionated columnists and pundits may not want to open that debate up to just anybody; they may even be offended by the prospect. But debates cannot be won by those who refuse to participate honestly. And contrary to the caricature, the new media landscape provides ever more legitimate and thoughtful platforms for that debate, from the eminent Munk Debates to dialogues on the Free Press and millions more on YouTube and beyond. I encourage Hub readers to embrace the era of information abundance and harness it to sharpen their own minds and arguments.

Let your awareness of the omnipresence of lies serve as a shield against simple explanations and lazy narratives, and dig deeper and challenge more. Never lie, even in pursuit of what you believe to be righteous goals. Talk more, debate more, engage more. If you’re shocked by recent events, perhaps your diet of information needs to change—not to change your mind about what should have happened, but simply to better understand what happened and why.

Which leads to one final point. Anyone who undertakes the irrevocable act of putting their words out there for others to read should have the humility and basic courtesy to respect their readers and viewers. This increasing trend of breathless disdain for the (ever larger) population who disagree with the uniform positions of the traditional media is destructive. It is destructive of societal cohesion broadly and more acutely, it is destructive of the public’s trust in the media. You may find the recent U.S. election incomprehensibly stupid, as is your right. You may even be correct. But from a practical level, treating readers and viewers—you might even say customers—with contempt and scorn is not a recipe for earning their trust.

In a world where distributing content has zero marginal costs, and where there is significant consumer demand for content they can trust, the marketplace of ideas will keep churning and someone out there will capture the attention and trust of readers. This is what The Hub is doing, and why I have been delighted to watch it grow and fill the vacuum of trust left behind by others. Free thought is and always will be an indefatigable and inevitable victor. Anyone who seeks to silence views they disagree with will eventually become King Canute, on a journey to inevitable humility as they discover the tide cannot be contained.